The U.S media covers up black on white crime and over reports white or "white" on black crime.
Debate Rounds (3)
Please no race baiting, racism or denying of facts.
There is a double standard in the U.S media. If a white person commits a crime against a black person even if it is out of self defense as we saw in ferguson that event will be discussed and reported on a lot. If a black person commits a crime against a white person that crime will not be reported.
Statistics on race and crime in America From DOJ and FBI.gov.
Every year their are 15,000 20,000 rapes of white people by black people and 30 rapes of black people by white people.
Black people are twice as likely to commit a hate crime against a white person
Black people are 39 times more likely to commit a crime against a white person than a white person is to commit a crime against a black person.
There are about 700,000-1,000,000 violent crimes a year involving black and white people. 85% of these crimes are committed by black people against white people.
There are 10,000 black on white gang rapes a year and almost 0 white on black gang rapes a year.
Examples of black on white crimes that the media underreported
Joshua Chellew was 36 years old when he was beaten and pushed in front of a car by four black men in Marbleton Georgia. He died.
Antonio Santiago was 13 months old when De'marquise Ellksin shot him in the head killing him after his mom didn't give him money. This was also in Georgia. He was white Hispanic and his killer was black.
Bob and Nancy straight were an elderly couple from Tulsa. They were beaten to death by Tyrone Woodforke in 2013. Their killer was black and they were white.
In 2013 a Kansas City boy was lit on fire by two black teens as they yelled racial slurs.
Melinda McCormick was 33 when Gregory William, Keisha Pughe and Anthony Presley beat he to death
Jane Juergens was jogging in Westerville Ohio in October 2013 when a black teen stabbed her to death randomly.
Kelli O'Laughlin was a 14 year old Chicago girl who was stabbed to death by John Wilson Jr in 2011. She had found him robbing her families home. He sent texts to her mom through her phone taunting her.
David Forster and Marjon Rotsami were beaten by 30 black teens in Virginia, one opinion piece was written in the Virginia times that the worked for.
Kevin Shifflet was 8 years old when a black man slit his throat as he played in his yard. The killer did it because he hated white people.
David Dunlap and his pregnant wife Whitney Butler were killed by Mayco January in Colorado Springs.
These are just some of the many black on white crimes that have been underreported by the media.
The media over reports white on black crime even if that crime is done out of self defense.
As Con, I will be arguing against the resolution "the U.S media covers up black on white crime and over reports white or "white" on black crime." I also will show how twisted the average human being is and how he craves to watch dysfunction and violence. Human beings don't seek peace or want it but search for problems that will quench this appetite.
The media is not a collective body. The media functions just like other businesses who seek to attain and retain their consumers. If the media doesn't retain their consumers, they will have lower subscribers and/or ratings. If their ratings are insignificant to the point where the shows' and magazines' existence come into question, the employees will lose their jobs most likely. The television media outlets need to retain ratings to continue their shows. Newspapers and magazines need subscribers to continue printing their articles. How do they do this? Anomalies. Essentially, rare events that encapsulate violence are likely to gain ratings. Discussing violence tends to gain ratings. But discussing rare cases of violence tends to make the ratings shoot right up.
Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Casey Anthony, Adam Lanza, and James Holmes were all involved in rare incidents. All of these cases raised media ratings. I will just focus on the decisions of the court just to show the power of these stories that captures the public's attention.
Officer Wilson not indicted by grand jury: 5.6 million people watched Fox between 8:00 PM-11:00 PM on November 24. This was only second to the midterm elections in terms of quarterly ratings.
Casey Anthony verdict: 5.2 million people watched HLN between 2:15 and 2:30 to watch the Casey Anthony verdict of "not guilty." This was the highest rating ever in HLN history. To put it in context, HLN's viewership increased 1,700 percent.
George Zimmerman verdict: 3.2 million people watched Fox. In total there were over 10 million viewers across the various networks.
Anomalies sell, ratings go up. Therefore let it be known, anomalies gain ratings while regularities don't gain that much ratings at all. I would also state emphatically, that people with political agendas will push their agendas when these rare incidents happen due to the emotional frenzy taking place among media viewers. The ideologues have and probably will continue to push their political agendas when these rare incidents happen because it fits their narrative. For example, how some of the Mike Brown supporters were trying to make the claim that the police were "racist" due to the incident with Officer Wilson. Another example, would be how the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman results in people demanding the end of castle doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" laws. Another example would be how people used the New Haven incident with Adam Lanza and the Colorado Theater shooting with James Holmes as moments to push gun control. Rare incidents ultimately will cultivate fertile ground for these people with political agendas due to the frenzy surrounding these rare incidents.
"Black" on "white crimes wouldn't obtain ratings because it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, "black" on "black" crimes for that matter is hardly worth discussing in the media either. Look at the most dangerous cities in America, they tend to be disproportionally majority "black" cities. How would "black" on "white" crimes gain any ratings if blacks disproportionally commit crime? Simply put, it wouldn't gain any ratings because it wouldn't shock anyone and no one is sent into a frenzy. People will just say: "Ok, what else is new?"
The media's success is based on rare and uncommon incidents and other tragedies that rarely happen. Why would people turn into the news to watch something that happens every day or is common? The media at the end of the day is a business too just like any other for profit entity. I will simply quote H.L. Mencken, the journalist who fooled America with the infamous Bathtub Hoax, "A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." The key to popular journalism is sensationalism. It may be unethical but it is profitable. The media isn't covering anything up in relation to "black" on "white" crime. It is hardly worth covering because there is no ratings to be gained from talking about such common stories. Controversy sells, this is free market capitalism at its' finest, we give the people what they want not what they need.
I see you don't deny that black on white crime is more common than white on black crime and that the media hardly reports black on white crime. You also don't deny that events that can be used to push political agendas like gun control will be reported on more.
Many of the cases I named are very brutal and would be read about by many. Millions would watch a story about a baby shot in the face or a marine and his pregnant wife killed because the killer was a minority and wanted to take out his frustration on them. If people care about a kid who was suspended for vandalism and was caught with burglary tools they'll care about the 14 year old stabbed to death in her Chicago home. But they don't. Most pepper don't know. The leftist media also covers up the many stories where guns are used in self defense--because it wouldn't fit their agenda. Their agenda, when it comes to race, is that whites are racist, all minorities are victims and white cops are out to get black people. The media will report on some of these cases but leave race out. For example a couple years who a bunch if black teens best up white people at at the Iowa state fair. They called this "beat whitey night". In Memphis recently a group of black teens yelled "beat whitey" as they beat up employees in a Walmart. These stories were reported but the "beat whitey part" was taken out. A year ago when Australian baseball player Chris lane was killed by three teens the media labeled this as a thrill killing. One of the killers had sent out racist tweets about how "90% of white people were bad" and how he was going to kill some "wood". It's not just a coincidence that he killed a white guy as the victim was jogging. He appeared to have targeted the first white person.
Thanks for debating.
"Millions would watch a story about a baby shot in the face or a marine and his pregnant wife killed because the killer was a minority and wanted to take out his frustration on them."
What evidence do you have that millions would watch "baby shot in the face or a marine and his pregnant wife killed because the killer was a minority and wanted to take out his frustration on them?" This is what my opponent claims but has no evidence to support their claim because this is based on their opinion. My opponent has just validated my case even further. It would be appropopriate at this point for my opponent to concede the debate. How often are babies shot in the face? Those incidents are anomalies. How often are pregnant women the victims or the initiaters of crime? Those incidents are also anomalies. If a baby was shot in the face or perhaps even a woman was shot in the face ratings would go up significantly due to the rarity of the occurence.
"If people care about a kid who was suspended for vandalism and was caught with burglary tools they'll care about the 14 year old stabbed to death in her Chicago home. But they don't. Most pepper don't know. "
They do know. They don't care. The ratings speak for themselves. The evidence doesn't support what you claim. Ratings are not up for debate when they are offered by Nielsen Media Research and other organizations which study ratings.It wouldn't gain over a million ratings on national TV. You won't find a single local case unless it is big as the OJ Simpson case which willl even attract significant ratings. But even then again the OJ Simpson case had nothing to do with race.
"The leftist media also covers up the many stories where guns are used in self defense--because it wouldn't fit their agenda."
The debate resolution is about the "media" not the leftist media. Just for your information, I showed above that it was Fox News that received the most ratings related to the failed indictment of Officer Wilson.
"For example a couple years who a bunch if black teens best up white people at at the Iowa state fair. They called this "beat whitey night"....These stories were reported but the "beat whitey part" was taken out. "
False, the local media detailed the story and interviewed multiple people, how is this a media cover up? The female police officer during the interview even stated they were investiagting whether it was a "race related" case. The female officer clearly stated that the teens were yelling "it is beat whitey" night. You are clearly mistaken, there is no media cover up.
"In Memphis recently a group of black teens yelled "beat whitey" as they beat up employees in a Walmart."
I have never heard of this case. You have not offered any proof of this case. You have not mentioned any suspects or victims in this case. Therefore this case is dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence offered.
"A year ago when Australian baseball player Chris lane was killed by three teens the media labeled this as a thrill killing. One of the killers had sent out racist tweets about how "90% of white people were bad" and how he was going to kill some "wood". It's not just a coincidence that he killed a white guy as the victim was jogging. He appeared to have targeted the first white person."
The media did report the Christopher Lane story. Not just the local Oklahoma media either, but national news outlets covered the story. Fox News and MSNBC had their usual sparring narratives over the Christopher Lane case.
My opponent also sounds like a person with a political agenda here and watching too much Fox News. Why do I say Fox news? Fox news reported that the killers of Christopher Lane were three black teenagers, this was utterly false. But still, the fact of the matter is in most "race-related" cases, it is difficult to prove race was involved in the crime as a motivating factor.
My opponent is inserting a political narrative here to suit her agenda. Just as the recent Ferguson case, people with political agendas inserted the claim race was involved when there was no evidence indicating that. Christopher Lane was killed by two blacks kids, James Francis Edwards Jr and Chauncey Allen Luna, and a white kid, Michael Dewayne Jones. There is no proof whether race was involved or not. My opponent is inserting something that was not related at all to the case. One of the three participants on the attack on Christopher Lane was white which was James Francis Edwards. On top of all this, the police in Oklahoma clearly stated it was not a "race related" case.
My opponent is just ranting from point to point at this stage in the debate. Unsupported evidence about what the media is doing and not doing. My opponent even pointed to the Christopher Lane which the third person involved in the murder was white, Michael Dewayne Jones. The media has reported all of these incidents as I have shown. There is no media cover up, FACT. My opponent ignored all of my Round 1 points, for what? To offer us more speculation, more conjecture, and more confusion. I have offered the facts about the content of these cases and the media's invovlement which can be double checked if doubted. My opponent should concede the debate at this point because all of their contentions about a media cover up has been refuted thoroughly.
I have problems with the leftist and conservative media. The leftist media race baits and appears to be run by people who hate whites and the right wing media spreads Islamophobia and anti gay feelings. I know each news station will only tell stories that fit their agenda.
I didn't see anyone on national news discussing beat whitey night. Black mob attacks on white people happen hundreds of times a year. 500 of these events are documented in white girl bleed a lot by Colin Flaherty.
Just search "teens attack Memphis Walmart" it was in September.
Look up Chris lanes killer racist tweets. There are pictures of his account and the tweets he sent out.
You do seem to understand that black on white crime is more common than white on black crime.
"Millions of people would watch a news story about a baby shot in the face or a man who killed a marine and his pregnant wife."
My point has been further validated. The media focuses on anomalies that can gain ratings. Therefore there is no cover-up.
"The Casey Anthony trial was big news and so was the johnbenet Ramsey case."
I pointed this fact in Round 1, not my opponent.
"Just search "teens attack Memphis Walmart" it was in September."
I am not doing your research. You brought it up and it is your responsibility to explain the case. Not my responsibility.
"I have problems with the leftist and conservative media. The leftist media race baits and appears to be run by people who hate whites and the right wing media spreads Islamophobia and anti gay feelings. I know each news station will only tell stories that fit their agenda."
They are merely muckrakers, it has been an American tradition for a bit longer than a century to say the least. Sensationalism captures the human imagination.
"Look up Chris lanes killer racist tweets. There are pictures of his account and the tweets he sent out"
Irrelevant to the case. That has as much relevance to that case as Officer Wilson's dispute with his wife's ex life partner. Neither are relevant to their respective cases at all. If you can't prove something is related to the case at hand, then don't bring it up.
"You do seem to understand that black on white crime is more common than white on black crime."
It is not an understanding, it is a statistical fact according to the FBI Uniform Crime Index. However, interracial crimes in general is irrelevant because most whites murder other whites and most blacks murder other blacks. Only people with political agendas are searching for these incidents to fit their narratives.
"500 of these events are documented in white girl bleed a lot by Colin Flaherty."
The problem with Flaherty's work is that it is sloppy and doesn't even follow the basics of academic research. There is little facts given about those cases. Flahtery just gathered a bunch of Youtube videos and put a political commentary over it to fit his agenda. If we want to talk about cases, you must definitively prove why someone is attacking someone. Again, Flahtery inserted a narrative on these cases. He cannot prove race was related in any of these cases as no one can prove that race was related in the Mike Brown incident.
First most people are in overreacting but giving importance to interracial crimes when most whites murder other whites and most blacks murder other blacks. Then to assume, any interracial crime related to race is egregious to say the least. Flahtery did not offer any substantial research on a single case. He offered no empirical data. No one else can go back and actually look at these incidents in details to see how they began, how they were motivated, and how they were ended and come to the same conclusions as Colin Flahtery.
Flahtery didn't examine the cases nor did he research the newspapers or media about said cases, he just watched Youtube videos and put a commentary over it. There are no interviews, references, bibliography, or any citations at all.This is unacceptable in a literate society. I want an advanced society and I am tired of the idiots who have plagued this earth too long; they impede progress by offering make believe narratives rather than observing facts and attempting to find facts. A college professor wouldn't accept his pseudo-analytical book.
Such books and commentaries by Paul Kersey(Stuff Black People Don't Like) and Colin Flahtery(White Girl Bleed A Lot) shouldn't be dismissed for being "racist" as many simpletons and social justice types wish to do. But they do need to be debunked to show it is not based on empirical research but based on opinion and conjecture. Just as the people who claim police brutality is happening every day need to be debunked. If someone claims a fact, someone else should be able to go back and see what they see without contention. However, these social justice types and their white backlash fellows are not interested in facts or empirical research, only narratives and political agendas. Essentially, profitable lies.
My opponent has not shown any evidence how there is any media cover up, vote Con please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just stated there personal views with out a clear argument. Pro used no sources. Con meet there BoP by showing how the media will report things out side the normal more often to get ratings. Kudos to Con for pointing out the holes in Pros examples when no source was given
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.