Skip to main content

View Diary: Story punches reporters in face; goes unnoticed (478 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No cherry picking. (5+ / 0-)

    How many other people in the world were in front of these reporters, giving these responses?

    One. And only one.

    No other cherries to pick from. This guy told them that the reason his friend murdered three people was his believe in a Zionist-controlled government, and imminent martial law and gun bans.

    This elicits not even so much as a, "Really?" from the reporter.

    In fact, it makes the reporter say, "So everything was normal, then?"

    There aren't any cherries to pick from in this story. One guy and only one guy. And nobody said a word.

    Hell, I wish it could have ended at "nobody said a word!" It's worse than that! The reporters said, "Situation normal!"

    •  You are missing the point (0+ / 0-)

      You are cherry picking this incident.  I am disappointed in your story as it agenda looking for proof rather.  Data should show cause like Nate Silver's blog.

      •  Cherry picking from among what set? (4+ / 0-)

        The data set of all police shootings after which a friend reveals extreme anti-Semitic bias and paranoia, and reporters OK it as "normal?"

        Or from the data set of all stories ever reported by media?

        I don't think you fully understand what "cherry picking" you think you're identifying. I think you just like the term because it makes you sound like you're making a substantive criticism when you might have none to offer.

        But we'll see, I guess. Let's hear it.

        What causation should I be demonstrating with data about this reporter's normalization of the factors this man said led to the shooting?

        •  A sweeping media generalization, one data point (0+ / 0-)

          I fully understand what cherry picking is and this is an excellent example of the agenda looking for proof.  

          In most of these types of stories, it is another in a long line of data points of something to actually be outraged of and act on, like fox reporting inaccuracies on purpose as it promotes their agenda.  This story just has one data point and it grasping to connect the media with some crazy guy ranting.  Crazy people are crazy, get over it.  He said the word "zionist" and he is still crazy, get over it.  

          Your point just does not exist as you presented it.

          •  Sorry. Can't agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thebluecrayon

            This really is a story about two reporters who missed being punched in the face by the answer to the very questions they was asking.

            I understand the hardon some people have for Nate Silver style reduction of everything to data, and that's great if your interest is predicting the outcome of elections.

            But the world consists of more than just data sets, and some of what we're discussing here defies quantification.

            This particular incident doesn't, though. The universe under examination consists of two reporters. The entirety of the data that's possible to examine in the question of, "Did these two reporters remain unfazed by the interviewee's assertion of motives that really should have merited further interest?" is here for us on video.

            If the question were, "Did the universe of all reporters remain similarly unfazed?" then you have a cherry picking problem.

            The answer here, though, is that 100% of the reporters we're actually talking about did.

            •  Story about you being sensitive to one word (0+ / 0-)

              If you swap out the word "zionist" with "aliens", I would expect about the same response from the reporters.  You are projecting something important to you on these two reporters.  Not thousands of incidents.  Not an organization working to promote nut jobs.  One incident.

              I dislike that you are cherry picking this one incident to promote your agenda.  Nate Silver is successful as he is gathering data and crunching it to show a predictable result.  You did not write an opinion piece, you gathered two facts and twisted them to show a relationship that is not there.  Please, consider that fox does this in their entertainment programing and people jump all over them for that.  I am saying it is not good to stoop to that level.

            •  I agree with Mr. Waldman (0+ / 0-)

              I can't watch this articles' vid clips, but I saw a snippet of the discussed interview on a local 'news' program. I had the same reaction-- WTF did that asshole just calmly say? And no apparent response from the original 'reporter', nor the local newsreader.

              And by "snippet", what I mean is the average local tv news program to me is a total waste of time. I pretty well stopped watching such years ago, but it has gotten even worse with the usual 10-15 second per news item 'in depth' coverage. I don't even get how somebody with ADD could watch most of it.
               

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site