• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I subscribe to both The Washington Post and The New York Times and it feels like it’s been weeks that either newspaper has covered the George Floyd protests that continue to occur.







    • Could be for two possible reasons:

      1) The protests are turning ugly in some places. Looting and violence is diluting the message. Covering the protests without that in context would be unfair. With those facts considered, it does more harm than good to report on them.

      2) While the overwhelming protests across the country, indeed the world, are a positive sign of change, there is a lack of single leadership to the cause. Lack of leadership means inchoherent demands. There is no tangible demand, which if fulfilled, would bring an end to the protests. It’s nice to want racism to end entirely, it’s unlikely to happen over night, if ever.

      It’s the anger of a society boiling over. And anger... eventually... just needs to boil over.

      PS: If it’s not entirely obvious, I fully support the protests and movement. I am just making some observations.

    • This is not about the BLM story but rather about the News Media in general.

      The typical news media outlet tends to watch its competitors. If the other news media outlets start giving attention to a certain story then a "feeding frenzy" often starts. This produces a self-perpetuating focus. As long as there is no other story that is occupying the attention of the other news media outlets, the typical outlet acts as if it has to come up with another article (or broadcast) even when nothing new has occurred.

      When another story breaks if several outlets begin reducing their coverage of the earlier story and placing a lot of resources on covering the later story then the typical outlet acts as if it also needs to devote more attention to the new story and less to the earlier, this also produces a self-perpetuating disattentiveness to the earlier story.

      There is also the "novelty" psychology of humans. Whatever it is that causes us to want the latest books, the latest movies, the newest attractive person in town, this aspect of our psychology also has its affect on journalists. (It's my opinion that sometimes when the KJV uses the word "strange" what it really means is the "unfamiliar." The reason that the Athenians congregated to hear Paul was simply because he was the "newest sensation" not out of any sense that what he had to say might be true.)

      Fads and the such-like are often signs of a lack of anchorage and a desire for something different.

      Sadly, this means that important things often get less attention the longer they persist. I am convinced that the reason that the events of the civil rights movement of the 1960s failed to maintain the same degree of momentum after the 1960s was not so much malice as it was dilettantish involvement on the part of those who were involved primarily because it was "current" in the 1960s.

    • I don’t know anything about the politician in this video, but I am incredibly impressed by the orchestration that went into the protestors’s shutdown of his remarks.

    • This is powerful.

      If you are a politician, do not ignore those who are asking to be heard.

      Or else you will suffer a similar public comeuppance: the video has been watched over one million times.

    • I agree that it's hard to get coverage of what's really going on, but I think it's purposeful. The big media outlets are more & more monopolies, with a smaller & smaller group controlling coverage. The powers that be- gov'ts, rich people- know what they DON'T want to see & hear about from national media, & that's dissent. Especially righteous outrage! And never with GOOD analysis explaining to the people the context- poverty, systemic racism, and increasing advantages for the already advantaged. Having said this, I've heard local newspapers tend to be better for accurate, relevant coverage.