sensationalist media

anonymous asked:

Hey folks! I was curious about the difference between skinheads and Nazis -- where I'm from (the midwest United States) a lot of people are of the impression that they're the same thing, and your latest post makes a note of that being incorrect. Could you please explain the difference so I can be better informed?

It’s a long story, but we’ll try to give you the short version:

(above: skinheads in the UK, circa 1969) 

Skinhead comes from the merger of two youth subcultures - the mods and the rude boys.  This happened when young Jamaican immigrants to the UK in the 1960s began hanging around with working-class English kids.  Back in the day, no one would blink an eye at a black skinhead

This began to change in the 1970s, when racist extremists in the UK began to recruit disaffected working-class youth as cannon fodder for their campaigns.  Noting that skinheads had reputations as street fighters, they began to distort & corrupt the subculture, helped along by a hysterical mass media.

By the time the skinhead subculture took root in the U.S., it was unclear which version of skinhead - the original multiracial version or the nazi imposters - would hold sway.  But sensationalist media coverage, stuffy academics, and of course the police made sure that the public equated “skinhead” with “racists,” unwittingly help U.S. racist groups with their recruitment by handing the subculture over to them on a silver fucking platter.

(above: The Baldies - the original anti-racist skinhead crew).

Happily, real skinheads in the U.S. were not having it.  Hailing from Minneapolis, The Baldies were the first organized crew of anti-racist skinheads and they fought & won a battle to drive a white supremacist bonehead gang off the streets.  

(above: members of The Syndicate at a 1989 Syndicate inter-city conference in Minneapolis)

A couple of years later they would co-found The Syndicate - an intercity network of anti-racist skins, punks, and other youth in the MidWest that laid the foundations for The Anti-Racist Action Network a few years later.

(above: patches commissioned by founding members of the original SHARP chapter)
 
Around this time, a group of anti-racist skins in NYC formed the world’s first SHARP chapter, which inspired other chapters all over the world.

  (above: image from flyer for the first RASH intercity gathering)

In 1993, Red and Anarchist Skinheads began also in NYC but with an (obviously) more explicit political mandate.  

So basically Anon, skinhead began as a multiracial youth subculture that nazi scum have been attempting to take over for years.  But despite help from the authorities and the media, the majority of skinheads have never been racist scum!  Because of this, real skinheads strongly object to any reference to bigoted filth as “skinheads.”  The preferred and more-accurate term for such swine is “bonehead.”

You’ll find a more academic look at this whole deal here.   

(above: SHARP skins in Paris)

Sharks: Not Vicious, Just Mouthy and Inquisitive

In lieu of all of the sensationalist shark media occurring out there this summer, let’s talk about shark behavior and, in specific, shark attacks and white shark.

Some basic white shark facts (and yes, Carcharodon carcharias is often also officially called the great white, but that just exacerbates all the media attention, so white shark it is). Whites are huge pelagic (open water) sharks that get on average 4-5 meters long, and their only known predator as an adult are orcas. They’re one of the longest lived cartilaginous fish known with a lifespan that appears to extend into their 70′s. They have hella tons of teeth and lots of rows of them, so that when one pops out the next just pops into place as if on a conveyor belt. A white shark’s bite force is something like 4000 pounds per square inch from a six-foot-long animal. (Thanks to wiki for all the basic facts). 

Have a white shark anatomical drawing from wiki, because while it’s nightmare-inducing, it’s the only thing about sharks that should be. 

People love to talk about sharks as these horrible monsters of the deep, eating everything they come across with gruesome abandon. This is just ‘perfect’ for summer, when sharks start showing up on beaches in the US and scaring the bejeezus out of basically everyone. 

Luckily, those people are making things up. You’re more likely to die because you shook a vending machine and it fell on top of you than you are to get bitten (note: not attacked) by a white shark. There’s a couple things you’re got to know about how sharks function to understand why worrying about getting nommed on by one at the beach is pretty silly. 

To start, they’re not man-eaters. Sharks don’t even know what a human is. We’re not aquatic organisms and they’ve probably only rarely encountered humans before, so there’s no reason to assume they’re going to be like ‘omg tasty hooman’ and charge over for a snack We don’t fit into what sharks consider prey, so they’re not going to prey on us intentionally. 

However, they do prey on seals. Tasty, blubbery, freaking-stupidly-clever-and-fast seals. And a human on a surfboard (which is when almost all shark encounters happen that result in injury) happens to look mightily like a seal if all you can see is a silhouette. More importantly, it’s a slow, stationary seal, which implies an easy meal. Most of the time, sharks ‘attack’ surfers thinking they’re seals. And guess what? Humans do not have all that tasty, energy-loaded blubber that seals do. We’re pretty bony and we’re on these weird plastic things that have got to taste nasty as hell. Most shark ‘attacks’ last for one bite, because the shark pretty quickly realizes that we’re not the pinniped it thought we were, and those bones aren’t worth the effort, and it leaves. Not great for the surfer who is now missing lots of bits, but hey, the shark isn’t purposefully being an asshole. It was a case of mistaken identity!

But there are lots of encounters where people don’t get hurt, right? They just get the shit scared out of them when a shark starts face-punching their arm, and panic, and call the media, and suddenly it’s an attack again. This is actually because most of a shark’s sensory organs are on it’s face. 

All those red dots are organs called the ampullae of lorenzini, and they sense electrical stimulus. They’re the organs that all cartilaginous fish use to locate food - when you see a ray sweeping it’s rostrum across the sand, it’s using it’s ampullae to search for buried critters. So if a shark is curious about something, say, a human, the first response is to nose it to get more information. That’s not aggression, it’s curiosity. Then, unfortunately, if it still wants more information, it’ll go and take a nibble - because, if you look above, there are more dots right around the mouth than anywhere else. Sharks are basically the really sharp aquatic equivalent of that annoying baby who has to put everything in it’s mouth. 

Because humanity is collectively terrified of anything that has more naturally provided pointy bits than we do, everything has to demonize sharks, and that ends really badly. Everything gets interpreted as aggression. This, for instance, is a video in which a shark attempts to figure out what a pontoon boat is and gets stuck in the float. The people watching it of course put JAWS music on and captioned it as an attack, but that’s just a stressed shark going ‘wtf is this weird thing and why won’t it give me my teeth back’. 

It’s shark season, but that doesn’t mean they’re out to eat us. We’re a bony, problematic food that likes to play mean tricks by pretending to be seals. If you don’t want to get attacked by a shark? Be careful about being in the water, and don’t surf at sunset or sunrise. If you see a shark being inquisitive, just bop it. They’re not used to any sort of physical contact from something that isn’t either food, a predator, or a mate, so they’ll generally just leave immediately.

Tl;dr, sharks are mouthy babies who aren’t good at differentiating humans from seals, and we certainly don’t help them any.

Richard Ramirez was 24-years-old when he began murdering people, which, in the world of serial murder, is an exceptionally young age. His spate of brutal killings took place over just a few years during which he took the lives of 14 people and committed senseless acts of rape and assault. Below are a compilation of what I think are some of the most interesting facts about the infamous Night Stalker.

The Night Stalker wasn’t his original title: The sensationalist media brainstormed a whole array of nicknames for the killer who was terrorizing LA. For a while, he was called “The Walk-in Killer” the “Screen Door Intruder” and “The Valley Intruder”.

A juror was mysteriously murdered during the trial: Phyllis Singletary was found shot to death in her home. This terrified other jurors, and many tried to leave, fearing they would be next. It’s unknown whether or not Ramirez had anything to do with the murder.

His wife, Doreen, vowed to kill herself if he was given the death sentence: In 1997, she told CNN that she would commit suicide if her darling husband was killed.

Ramirez refused to wear gold: Being a Satanist, the killer didn’t believe in a lavish lifestyle so he refused to wear anything containing gold. At his prison wedding, Ramirez and Doreen wore silver wedding rings. Furthermore, upon visiting his niece one day, he made her take her gold necklace off because he was so disgusted by it.

As a child, he slept in the cemetery: Ramirez became obsessed with the macabre as he grew older. From about 12 years old, he would sneak out of the house in the dead of night and go to the local graveyard. He would take his pillows and blankets, and would lie next to graves and sleep there.

Are we on the verge of a Third World War (WWIII)?

I did not want to give an opinion on the subject, suddenly everyone went into paranoia, and when that happens there is a lot of stupid sucker and sensasionalist/biased media taking advantage.

No, there will not be a Third World War, stop your paranoia. A World War does not start that easy. For a World War, there must be a major cause, for example, as happened in World War II with the Nazi advance in Europe that forced regions of the world - including enemies - to ally themselves to stop the advance. We have to have beware of the sensationalist media and the Internet. The wars of this caliber occur when nations feel that their stability and security is threatened by forces that launch a campaign of war, not because a guy attacked a military base that is already a country in conflict. Currently there are no such conditions for a world war, civil war in Syria is a Syrian problem and although two powers such as the USA and Russia are involved what happens to Syria does not represent a threat to their national security. The alliances in Syria in a matter of geopolitics. The only thing that can pose a problem to the national security of those countries is ISIS, but none want it so that whoever has control of Syria will anyway erase it from the map.

And the warnings that Russia has given and military mobilizations? That is normal, Russia is protecting its ally and it is obvious that it has to face up to its own, but Russia does not want war with the USA or the USA with Russia, both know the level of destruction and how expensive it would be to carry a war between powers - a war is not free - adding that they are nuclear powers and both have a terror to that. The other is that the mobilizations are normal in an area of conflict, for no one is a secret that Russia and the USA are carrying out operations in that area and since one of the two countries send fleets there is something that has been given for decades .

And the threats of the North Korean and his missile tests? I’ll ask you a question, when that guy has not done that? To reach such a point that they ignore him, all he does is use intimidation but North Korea has an acute crisis, they could not afford a war, the USA has nothing to look for there either, so North Korea is not an objective that you can get something. I’ve never witnessed a year that this guy does not jump with his threats or do missile tests, so ignoring him is absurd. Pay attention to him when he really moves, a difficult thing because he does not have to afford a war.

For more threats, intimidation and everything they do, no one wants war and less with a power, obviously these countries can not show weakness, but they get wet their fright by just thinking about a world war between nuclear powers. Even they are clear that the first one that uses nuclear weapons will be used against them, reason why difficult some dares to throw one. So lower it your paranoia.

The US attacked on a military base in Syria made many lose their heads, however, and the USA in the Obama period has carried out military operations in Syria, then. Why all this commotion? Well, the problem is the target of the attack. The USA even though its supports and even funds the Syrian rebels has avoided any direct conflict with the Syrian state, this because the state is supported and even protected by Russia. Surely he wonders, then what maneuvers did the USA do in Syria if it avoided a military conflict with Syria-Russia, well, the answer is that the USA attacked targets directed against ISIS, even the Syrian state allowed the access to its air space to the navy American - something paradoxical for being their indirect enemy and knowing that they would use this to help the rebels - because ISIS is a common enemy that has Syria, Russia, the rebels and the USA, by which they have even come to cooperate in military logistics To plan attacks against this terrorist group. In this cooperation there was a non-aggression pact between Russia and the USA, because military operations are made by these two great powers. That is why the attack took them by surprise, as they did not expect direct aggression from the USA, because the Russians are the ones who run the war operations in Syria and they have the technology to watch over and avoid an American attack, since they have always prepared for a war Against the USA since the cold war, but they had low-guard.

What’s the matter with Trump? As they know every beginning by “chemical weapons” detonated in that country, it is not yet clear what happened, but the most impartial means presume that it was an accident, because the rebels allegedly had captured military arsenal, this came to the Syrian-Russian intelligence they made an operation to destroy this arsenal, but unfortunately there were “chemical weapons” between it and detonated. This led to a reaction by the Trump government - which was very hasty - which led to the attack on the Syrian military base, breaking the non-aggression pact and actively and directly involving the United States in the war. Only saw and supported rebels, is now a second country involved in the conflict, this is even seen as a declaration of war although USA only sees it as a warning, although Russia does not seem to see it as a declaration of war either, as they did not respond To attack and maybe just see it as a hazing of a new government.

But what is the problem here? It is that nuclear powers are being involved - Russia and the USA - and the most sensible thing is to avoid any incident that could trigger a war of high caliber. What happens in Syria is a civil war and this could lead to a war between nations and even a world war if complicated, so the previous administration was very careful, since the USA has had the desire since the civil war began in Syria to enter and knock down the regime by their own hands as they did in Iraq, but there is a “monster” there called Russia and that was why they had stayed aloof. Russia could have intercepted where the Tomahawk missiles came from but they did not, they did not respond to the aggression and they themselves know the consequence of doing so, it would be initial with a war that the world does not suit anyone and I hope that the good sense of both sides is present in this conflict. I know that this will not go far, it will not fulfill the wet dream of people on both sides who want to see how these two powers are killed, but will not happen and I hope to have the reason that the good sense in the end will be maintained.

anonymous asked:

Ahhhhhhhhh!!! Your newest chapter is so good I got anxiety just reading it the first time. I've read it like four times now and I don't know how I'm supposed to wait two whole weeks for the next (and final! Oh no!) chapter. D: D: D: Just wondering though, how does Yakov feel after the truth came out? He was super accusatory and it didn't seem like he was at all sorry for what happened to Yuuri. Oh, poor Yuuri. I need some kittens and fluff to get over this. D:

Yakov was very sorry when he realised he was wrong and unintentionally dealt a huge blow to Viktor’s career (and by extent his own but he’s more concerned about Viktor since Viktor tried to stop him) and caused something awful to happen to Yuuri as well as being horrible to him in a way that, while he thought he was justified at the time, was a really terrible thing to do. It wasn’t his fault that the information went public but he was still partially to blame.

I’ve been seeing a lot of Yakov hate in the comments and a lot of that seems to be based in the fact that Viktor apologized not him which is probably my fault for not clarifying well enough. Yakov does issue a public apology later and this will be mentioned in the next chapter. The reason Viktor does it in the hastily called press conference is because while Yakov actually made the accusations he’s Viktor’s coach and the sensationalist media don’t care one bit about the coaches, Viktor is the famous one so it’s his name that the scandal get’s attached to. So Viktor is the one that needs to issue the first apology and  do damage control and then Yakov can do official statements and apologies later, which he does.  

kidzbopislyfe  asked:

Black girl blurb?

So here it is, here it FINALLY is, words can’t express how sorry I am for taking so long with this. I really did put a lot of work and thought into this, I tried really hard and even though it’s heavy stuff and it doesn’t have any smut, I hope you guys still like it. And I hope that my fellow black girls who read this maybe get some comfort out of it, because I wanted to write it to work out some of the issues I’ve been having about this stuff. 

The N word is used once in this blurb, so a warning for that. And, I guess I should tell you guys that the little story ‘you’ tell is something that happened to me when I was young. So. Yes. You’re welcome to tell me what you think, I hope you like it, and it was worth the wait <3

“You alright, love?” Harry’s voice cuts through the thicket of heavy thoughts occupying your mind, and you blink as you turn to look at him from over the car console. “You’re a bit quiet.”

You can tell by looking in his eyes that he knows what’s on your mind, he knows that you’ve been bracing yourself for this dinner party for days. He knows you only agreed to come for him. He just wants to know that you’re okay underneath it all. He wants to know you don’t hate him for it.

“I’m fine, baby,” you say quietly, placing your hand on his arm where it’s outstretched towards the steering wheel. The shirt he’s wearing is a crisp, pristine white, just sheer enough to be his style, and for a moment you stare at the contrast between it and your dark skin. It only drives your anticipation higher.

It isn’t that you don’t like any his friends; Harry is a sweet, open, funny guy, and therefore he attracts many of the same. Through your time of knowing him there are many friends of his that you would go so far as to call friends of your own as well.

The host of this party, however, is not one of them.

From the moment you met Blake there was something about him you didn’t like, something smug and snivelling in his face that put you off. As with everyone that Harry introduces you to though, you figure there must be something there that Harry sees in him, and so you resolved to withhold judgment until you got to know him better.

Getting to know him didn’t help. He proved to be as pompous and obnoxious as you had initially suspected, his ignorance never stopping him from loudly voicing his uneducated opinions, his pathological need to prove himself right in all situations making it utterly exhausting and infuriating to hold any meaningful conversation with him. Thankfully, he was a very busy man and often out of town, meaning you didn’t have to constantly suffer his presence, but it didn’t make those rare occurrences any easier to get through.

Harry, for his part, knows you well enough that he was aware of your contempt for his friend before you told him outright, but it wasn’t very easy for him to understand. Your boyfriend is really very intelligent, so much so that it frustrates you to no end that he doesn’t get enough credit for it, but when it comes to racial matters, he’s very much out of his element. Dating you only flustered him more, seeing as before he was able to remain mostly oblivious, now, with it loud and blatant and in his face, he didn’t know how to react. When the racist comments towards you started flooding in on social media, when tabloids printed articles of the two of you with headlines about him having caught a case of ‘jungle fever’, you weren’t happy about it of course, but it was nothing you didn’t expect. Harry, on the other hand, nearly gave him a stroke over it.

So you never felt like it would do you any good to sit Harry down and tell him you didn’t like his friend because you can tell he harbors racist views; it would upset and confuse him and it was a conversation you didn’t want to have to weather through. You just hoped that nothing ever happened to force the matter.

Keep reading

Silencing of Trans Men

A friend and I were having a long conversation today about how trans guys are pretty much not allowed to talk about our experiences in any forum, and how that’s especially hard because we already suffer from a problem of having minimal visibility. 

Trans men who can pass tend to fly under the radar as much as possible, because it makes life a lot easier. Trans men are also less appealing to the gross fetishistic sensationalist media than trans women, so we get less (good AND bad) representation.

But another element of it is definitely that trans men, by and large, are socialized as women. Society treats us the way they treat cis women at least until (and sometimes long after) we come out (IF we come out). We’re taught literally from birth, just like cis girls, that the appropriate reaction to conflict is to retreat, to hide, to avoid. Just like it does for cis women, society tells us to keep our mouths shut. 

 And as a result… that’s what a lot of us do. 

So when trans men remain invisible on purpose, that’s often a direct reaction to being taught that being invisible is safer, that hiding is safer, that retreating is safer. 

Because on most levels it is. 

We’re told to keep our mouths shut, and since we’re told that for our entire childhoods, we internalize it. So we keep our mouths shut. We learn to perceive our voices as less important, and less valid. So whenever we speak up, it’s perceived as speaking OVER all the cis men around us, because we’re perceived as girls, and that’s how society perceives girls. 

Now enter the culture of online intersectional social justice forums and discourse. We want to contribute, to talk about our experiences, and to commiserate with other people who’ve experienced similar oppression. It’s hard to talk about this stuff sometimes, especially after being conditioned to think that any talking is too much talking. 

So we’re here, we’re queer, we’re ready to contribute, and… we’re told to keep our mouths shut.

I’ve seen a lot of discourse about how safe spaces for women should include ONLY women, which is mostly valid. Without even touching on the openings this leaves for TERF ideology, it still gets complicated when you start recognizing that not all trans men ever come out or are visible or present as masculine, and that nonbinary people exist, and that anyone who is dfab and femme is targeted similarly regardless of their actual gender, but still. Woman only spaces have a place and a purpose. The need for them has been stated by the people who need them and I understand and respect that, as should everyone else. 

But I’ve seen a lot of it extend to either stating or implying that trans men have no place in conversations about the ramifications of sexism, on the basis that contributing to the conversation equates to speaking over people. Specifically with the implication that we’re speaking over people who have had more VALID experiences of misogyny solely because they are women, regardless of whether the people perpetrating misogyny on trans men knew, believed, or cared that we were men. 

And that doesn’t make sense. 

Yes, we’re not women, but we sure as shit suffered at the hands of men who thought we were, and society who raised us as though we were. That wasn’t accidental, and it doesn’t go away as soon as we transition (IF we transition). It’s not like cis gay drag queens being subjected to transphobia. We didn’t choose to be assigned female at birth, we couldn’t opt out of it, and it wasn’t accidental. We suffer in many/most/in some cases ALL of the ways that cis women do as kids and teens, and that is completely intentional because society doesn’t care that we’re men. Society only cares about the anatomy we were born with. 

The message we get is that conversations about misogyny are irrelevant to us, when the reality is that they are deeply relevant to us because they affect us deeply. 

I’ve seen so many times the statement or implication that trans men need to keep our mouths shut about women’s experiences. 

And I get it, conceptually, but when I’ve seen it it’s usually attached to the sentiment that our experiences are irrelevant to the overarching subject of feminism, and also lacks any alternative platform for us to talk on. Because we’re also told to keep our mouths shut, of course, about male experiences by cis men (of course). So we can’t talk about what it’s like to be guys, and we can’t talk about what it’s like to be treated like girls. 

So…. we can’t talk.

And all the trans men I know respond to this overarching silencing message by thinking “Oh, well, okay I guess. I mean, I don’t want to speak over anyone.” 

Although his name is synonymous with serial murder, there is no evidence that would suggest that Charles Manson has actually killed anyone. Throughout the sensationalist media storm of the Manson Family Murders, many bizarre tabloid stories were sold to make money. The oddest of them was speculation that Charles Manson was the son of Adolf Hitler…

When asked by a reporter if he was innocent of murder or of any conspiracy to commit murder he replied with.

“No… I’ll plead guilty to the Indians”

anonymous asked:

The way the media likes to throw the mentally ill under the bus and claim killers are just sick makes me feel scared of myself. Sometimes when I start feeling unsure of myself I question if I'm a bad person too or something. This has been weighing on me for a while, apologies. I know I'm good and kind and would never hurt anyone but society has really given me some bad feelings about myself and I feel very ashamed.

The media are sensationalist shits, tbh. Please don’t feel bad. Anybody can harbour violent inclinations - mentally ill or not, they do not discriminate. It’s a common (and dangerous) misconception that everybody who kills is mentally ill, when in fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth.

ugh god like holy shit people are out here swallowing wholesale unverified claims just like they did with Iraq. buying hearsay propaganda claims as fact, defending the legacy of ISIS and AQ aligned fighters, and otherwise putting out this hypocritical “humanitarian” propaganda to drum up support for more bloodshed.

like i hate both assad and the nato backed rebels but seriously this type of sensationalist media is only going to lead to more imperialist terror on syria

But the more I travel, the clearer it seems to me: Fear is for people who don’t get out much. These people don’t see the world firsthand, so their opinions end up being shaped by sensationalistic media coverage geared toward selling ads. Sadly, fear-mongering politicians desperate for your vote pile on too.
—  Rick Steves

achinstraplife  asked:

NBC just published an article titled, "Scientists build case for 'Sixth Extinction' ... and say it could kill us." Obviously climate change and species extinction are real and dangerous things happening right now, but is this headline truly accurate or is it another tactic of sensationalist mass media click-baiting? I feel like I should be better at knowing what's credible and what isn't, but I always want to make certain before I (dis)credit anything.

This is so interesting. I have a bunch of asks about this but, from an evolutionary biology and ecology standpoint, there’s really nothing new about this study. The headline is accurate in it’s way. Yes, we are in the midst of a mass extinction event, yes we are the cause of that event and yes it “could kill us.” 

It probably /won’t/ kill us, but that’s not gonna get any clicks. 

Here’s the abstract of the actual study that these stories are referencing:

The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

In light of the events that has happened recently, from the shootings and bouts of inequality across America, the attacks in Paris to the bombings in Beirut–no matter where you are, I want remind you guys how much you matter to me and that your safety is paramount. I offer my condolences to those who were unfortunately caught in the middle of the tragedies, whether you were there or you knew someone who was.

During these times, it’s so important to get up off the ground and be there for one another, and offer comfort and compassion to those affected by it. It’s not the time to engage in trivial matters like finding someone or something to blame, or searching out the “true” reason for why these things happen, or lashing out at people for talking about, or NOT talking about one event or another. It’s far too easy to find fear and hatred when we’re shown these types of news, and in turn we might push people away; sensationalist media and journalism will do more than enough talking about those who create chaos, so we need to stand in solidarity by being pillars of support and assistance for those who are hurt. It’s about doing what you can to help those around you pick up the pieces and feel safe, whether you do it by opening up your home for those seeking shelter, or praying for everyone’s safety.

Show compassion and trust, as that is what will keep us together when hate, ignorance and fear tries to tear us apart.

Here’s a take on what happened yesterday:
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count "holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.“

—  Morgan Freeman

anonymous asked:

I, in no way, support misconduct by police, but do you realize how many people are murdered every single day by black men in the U.S.? The numbers are far far greater than police killings. Please ask yourself why that doesn't upset you as well, and why you're not blogging about it every time it happens. The answer is that you are easily persuaded by sensationalist media. America is not the KKK, and please stop infantilizing black people.

Please ask yourself why you think people killing people for their own personal reasons and getting charged and sentenced for it is on the same level as people in authority killing people and getting away with it because the colour of their skin.

You are aware this is a true crime blog, right? I post about murder carried out by a wide variety of perpetrators on a daily basis, including POC. Why are you only sending me this after posting about two POC killed by cops? Posting about injustice does not constitute as “infantilising” the victim. What a backward logic.

Nothing is Quiet on the Eastern Front today.

As We Speak, intense rioting is breaking out in the Ukraine right now. Hundreds of thousands of protesters are in the streets fighting in Kiev. Fires are burning, molotovs are being thrown like popcorn. This isn’t sensationalist media, this is truly happening.

Here are some streams that are currently broadcasting the carnage that is Ukraine:

 http://rt.com/on-air/ukraine-central-kiev-protest/
 http://www.ustream.tv/channel/euromajdan
 http://www.livestream.com/activistworldnewsnow

For all of my Ukrainian followers, I hope you stay safe tonight. It looks ugly out there.

Trump's supporters have always been here, and have always been vocal

The stunning inability of beltway media to understand Trump supporters may be the most frightening part of his candidacy.

Reporters and editors, look at your Facebook high school friends and your relatives’ email forwards. This reactionary paranoia is NOT NEW. It has been thriving for decades. Wishful thinking and willful ignorance will not make it go away.

This is the Republican base, and it has been for years. It’s long past time for both our staid and our sensationalist media outlets to notice there are not two moderate “sides” in US politics.

The GOP IS its voters. It is not Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush; it is terrified Fox viewers who justify racist violence and want the US to lash out at the world. They crave a strongman who will attack opponents without forethought.

By not recognizing the far right as widespread, media outlets have lost all credibility with them AND with informed moderates. As such, denunciation of the mainstream press coming from all over the political spectrum is not due to its balance, as columnists like to claim. It is due to its consistent blindness.

There appears to be a press mentality that publicly sharing the base racism and violence that animates today’s conservatism would be unfair. As if, since it is so offensive to reporters themselves, it would undermine one “side” of political debate and thus skew the public process. So, it instead goes unmentioned, which strengthens the hand of racist politicians. This result reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the American voting public, and of what “balanced” actually means.

If Trump accomplishes anything positive in his White House bid, public acknowledgment of the GOP’s reactionary and racist base will be–well, it will be HUGE. It may allow us to finally progress. Pretending we are a “post-racial” society, or some other such nonsense only keeps bigots in power.

Changing the narrative: privacy more important now than ever

In one of those ‘Jobs (Now Hiring)’ free inserts you find outside places like grocery stores and pharmacies, I read a full-page article regarding the “do’s and don'ts” of social media habits for job hunters.

Under Don'ts:

Don’t Hide Your Account. Privacy settings are a great thing, but hiding your account completely is also a red flag for a hiring manager. If a manager does a social media search for you and can’t find you at all, then they’re likely to assume you’re hiding something.”

Of course, I’ve been advised of this since my days in undergrad – potential employers will search for you and they are willing to pay for services which provide you with the kind of information marketers build your ad profiles with. I’m sure I don’t have to spell it out for any of you, but I wanted to at least emphasize this common theme in public discourse

'Valuing my privacy is considered “extremism” by the NSA’

and

'Valuing my privacy is a “red flag” to a prospective employer’

In both our public and our private lives, our right to privacy is under attack. In order to financially support themselves, people are forced to project a part of their identity, no matter how small or seemingly-insignificant, online where they are constantly bombarded with requests to divulge more by friends and media. And for those who buy in to the legitimacy of the NSA as a result of sensationalist media, people engage in self-censorship, even self-deception regarding critical issues which impact civil liberties domestic and abroad; to further bastardize the idea of right to privacy, the state actually encourages a culture of fear and mistrust of one’s fellow citizenry. If you see something, say something. You will be safe once only we are armed.

Everywhere in the media and our minds, these little battles over the legitimacy of privacy are fought. It happened when Donald Sterling’s right to privacy was casually tossed aside in spite of his racist remarks. Elliot Rodger’s internet habits and interests were scrutinized (and demonized); the same holds true for Christopher Dorner, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Chelsea Manning, Abdulrahman and Anwar al-Alwaki, Occupy Wall Street protestors, TEA partiers, the Las Vegas shooters who visited Bundy Ranch, Cliven Bundy himself, and each of you who follow me are very likely being scrutinized more heavily than Americans who fall in line and forget their rights.