IfTheyGunnedMeDown calls out media portrayals of black youth | Hacker News Reader

IfTheyGunnedMeDown calls out media portrayals of black youth

cbc.ca

56 pointsmaerF0x022 comments

This post was killed by user flags.

> "Trayvon, who was killed by George Zimmerman, was depicted as a gold-grill-wearing, weed-smoking teenager in the photos used by the media," she continued,...

For the entire 6 months the media (CNN, MSNBC, etc) played the story, this pic pretty much sums their representation of Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman -

http://artandresponse.com/paintings/a-tale-of-two-hoodies.ht...

( the site seems a bit slow, if it goes down, here is another hoster - http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/571032 )

So I have no idea what the person is talking about.

As far as the other mentioned stories, the real person is not represented by a standardized graduation picture with a dress code, but by their personal life and character.

The phenomenon referenced is real (it doesn't apply to Trayvon Martin, but it does to George Zimmerman); someone downthread provided this example: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/photo-of-mark-dugga... , and Time magazine infamously darkened OJ Simpson's mugshot ( http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/dark... ). It's definitely true that the media purposely uses hilariously biased imagery, it's just that it's not about making sure blacks are viewed as a menace -- it's about making sure that the doctored image supports your story, no matter how disconnected the two might be in reality.

On topic, while the criticism towards media is highly valid, i hope this also serves to educate youngsters about the virtues of cropping one's digital history of things of the past which do not represent oneself anymore. People in the media are also only people who wish to pay their bills and will make the minimum effort to get the job done. If loading up a facebook profile shows 20 pictures of a teenager with guns and drugs, they won't bother to search for the one graduation picture, or army entrance picture.

Doesn't matter how carefully you edit, if folk want to paint a narrative about you they will find something and alter it to fit -

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/photo-of-mark-dugga...

The rush to judgement in situations like this is just sickening. And that goes for both sides.

No investigation by anyone has revealed anything about either side. I can't figure out what's worse anymore - the media's complete dive into yellow journalism or the fact that so many people on the USA fuel the yellow journalism.

You know, it's quite possible that no amount of investigation will ever reveal definitively what happened beyond the basics of the matter, which appears to be that a cop shot an unarmed kid 35 feet away from the vehicle.

It's possible to start thinking and talking about that before some investigation supposedly reveals all, weeks later.

I'm sure you feel pretty clever, deciding that the real issue here is the State Of Journalism, and the Rush To Judgement, and you're welcome to your chin-stroking and your neutral principles. However, you'll just have to cope with the fact that much of the rest of the country has other things on their mind. Like: "why do cops keep shooting unarmed black people"?

One side here is dead and the other side isn't saying much that has made any kind of real sense.

You cannot blame journalism for people being angry at unarmed teenagers being shot.

No, but I can blame them for going after headlines instead of reporting responsibly; which they do far too often.

I can also blame the people that fall for it every time as well, as they're equally part of the problem.

The other side isn't saying much because there is an investigation going on. Too many people are not willing to wait for it. They'd rather make assumptions and draw their own conclusions then chastise those that refuse to accept them prematurely.

The rush to judgement that the officer did something wrong is no more correct than the rush to judgement that Mr. Brown was a criminal (or at best a future criminal) who did something wrong. Both sides are equally irresponsible at this time, which is something that used to be worth a chuckle but more and more has just become sad.

It isn't that they are not saying much.

It is that what they are saying makes very little sense.

The information from St. Louis County Police Chief is that an unarmed Michael Brown died 35 feet away from a police car, from being shot several times, due to an altercation inside that car.

And that to know anything further will take 6 weeks of toxicology.

edit - in answer to the further point below:

I see it as a problem when there are supposedly no facts in a case of someone being shot multiple times in broad daylight with several witnesses, followed up almost immediately by a large team of police who are fully able to cordon off and investigate the scene, who then claim that they cannot say anything because they want 6 weeks to do toxicology.

Toxicology.

For what, lead allergies?

The police chief gave a brief press conference following the event which was an admitted restatement of the officer's view of what happened, with everything qualified with the word allegedly. Since then his department has lost jurisdiction over the investigation and the FBI has yet to issue a statement.

Neither of which is 'one side' saying anything of any importance. The media has convinced tons of people that they have, but that doesn't actually mean that they have.

People are going nuts over something with no facts in the case. They have the officer's statements via the police chief, witness statements via the media, and a bunch of publicity seeking individuals with no clue what actually happened riling everyone up.

You do not see how that is a problem?

> with no facts in the case.

afaik testimony matters in a case, no?

I wasn't aware we've had a trial?

Yes, testimony matters, it absolutely does. But not the testimony the media shows us. Ascribing legitimacy to The Court of Public Opinion is dangerous.

FTA:

"Brown's death, which is now being investigated by the FBI, has generated a great deal of discussion (as well as protests, vigils, and riots) in recent days, with many condemning the police officer for shooting an unarmed young man."

However:

"But authorities say Brown had attacked the officer in his car and tried to take his gun.

"The genesis of this was a physical confrontation," St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said. His department has been called in to conduct an independent investigation."

Let's not be too quick to call out the lynch mobs here.

On the other hand: if I thought someone was going to shoot me, the resultant headline might well read "unarmed man shot while trying to take the shooters gun".

/me awaits the investigation and / or trial and / or video of the event

At no point did the kid enter the car. You want us to believe that a teenager, starting college the next day, dove into the drivers side of the car to steal a police officers gun. Picture that for a second and if that doesn't make you laugh then i don't know what will. The eyewitness accounts make the most sense so far.

Secondly, the gunshot to the back doesn't make sense. The gunshots while his hand were up also doesn't make sense. It seems like the cop was wrong on a number of levels.

>Lets not be too quick to call out the lynch mobs here.

Do you really think its a good idea to use the phrase "lynch mobs" when referring to the backlash of an apparently racially charged shooting, where the parent article is specifically about race issues?

Perhaps its just me, but that seems in poor taste.

Also with regards to the article: frankly it doesn't matter what Brown did/didn't. The article is about how media's choices shape narratives in a way that the hash tag users feel creates a bias against Brown and is part of the greater fabric of racism in america.

I repeat that's all regardless of Browns actions.

Yeah, it turns out, witnesses plural, dispute the police's account.

It's too bad the St. Louis police aren't wearing webcams while on duty.

Those tend to fail or be unavailable in cases like this. It's all the rest of the people who need to start lifelogging.

I think that the police are there to protect people. All people, even black teenagers.

I think that every time a police officer fails in that simple duty so badly that they actually kill one of the people they are supposed to protect, that there needs to be an assumption of guilt and failure on the part of the police.

I think that if we don't do that, if it becomes accepted that the police can occasionally kill people as part of their job, that we lose sight of what we have a police force for.

I think that being a police officer is hard because they have to deal with bad people without insulting them, restricting their rights or hurting them. The reward for doing this job right is the respect and co-operation of the community they protect. The penalty for not doing this job right is the loss of that respect and co-operation.

So I think whatever happens at the trial is irrelevant. The police failed here, and have lost the respect of their community. They need to do their jobs better.

of course the officer said he went for his gun. Every other eyewitness says otherwise. This is why we had calls for Police to where cameras - they lie

what has people even more outraged is that the spokesperson said the shooting was justified, BUT there will be an investigation.... This isn't just people going for the lynchmob

It's not a video but:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-sh...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com