It seems to me that the recent marches in protest of police violence against African-Americans are in large part a result of the fact that in a staggeringly high number of those incidents, the officer is not indicted. In the case of black-on-black crime, the assailant is usually promptly caught and prosecuted. It's the lack of accountability, I think, that's a prime motivation for the protests.
But, there have been plenty of marches against black-on-black crime. The thing is that news coverage is mostly local, or mentioned in a two-paragraph column on page A-13. The cable news channels don't see ratings gold in a march against black-on-black crime. They do, however, anytime there is a story that is guaranteed to generate controversy. The problem is not that the marches don't happen -- they do -- it's that we simply don't hear about them unless we live in the communities where the marches take place.
Perhaps there are also marches protesting against white-on-white crime that I don't know about. I've never heard of any. According to FBI crime statistics, 83% of white homicide victims were murdered by white assailants -- not very far off from the 90% black-on-black victims. I don't know if we're allowed to post links here so, if you wish, visit the FBI website (expanded homicide data) for a look-see. In any case, the reason for these high rates of same-race homicide are probably due in large part to proximity.(touched on by Dr. Cole in Point #2 of his post). If you're black and live in a predominantly black neighborhood, then chances are you would be victimized by someone of the same race. Likewise if you're white living in a predominantly white neighborhood. It's where you live, where you spend most if not all of your time, where you interact with others, and where you could end up on the wrong side of a disagreement, or whatever other motive leads to homicide.
On so many other issues, the media has been criticized (and rightfully so) for going out of their way to provide "balance." Often this supposed balance has the effect of giving equal legitimacy to each of two differing points of view (e.g., if two climatologists are given airtime to discuss the reality of global warming, they must be "balanced" against two climate-change deniers, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that global warming is real).
Putting the above example alongside media coverage of Israel/Palestine, we can see the glaring difference with respect to their purported efforts to provide balanced coverage.
"Balance" via equal airtime for two divergent viewpoints seems to be the norm only when it can be used to influence public opinion. Coverage that is heavily skewed in favor of Israel is done for the same reason. A more equitable coverage, which in the case of Israel/Palestine is merited, would be antithetical to their unstated goals.
I am reminded of a post by the Rude Pundit from February 24 of this year showing that these same scary stories have been told even long before 1992. Here is a short list (paraphrased):
AP, 4/25/84: Jane's Defense Weekly reports that Iran will have nukes by 1986. The bomb is being developed in Boushahar.
AFP, 12/4/91: German intelligence chief states that Iran will have the bomb by 2000.
WP, 10/18/92: Head of Israel's military intelligence states that Iran will have nukes by the end of the decade; British and French intelligence believes it will happen earlier; head of National Council of Resistance of Iran believes it will happen in three to five years.
AP, 2/12/93: Iran will have nukes within six years.
Guardian, 1/6/95: American and Israeli officials say Iran will have nukes in less than five years
AFP, 4/9/98: Iran already HAS nukes; they obtained warheads from a former Soviet republic in the early 1990s, according to the Jerusalem Post, who supposedly had access to Iranian documents obtained by Israel.
I'm sure that those stories are only the tip of the iceberg. This story has been going on for close to 30 years at the very least. It's rather convenient that Iran is always just a few years away.
It seems to me that the recent marches in protest of police violence against African-Americans are in large part a result of the fact that in a staggeringly high number of those incidents, the officer is not indicted. In the case of black-on-black crime, the assailant is usually promptly caught and prosecuted. It's the lack of accountability, I think, that's a prime motivation for the protests.
But, there have been plenty of marches against black-on-black crime. The thing is that news coverage is mostly local, or mentioned in a two-paragraph column on page A-13. The cable news channels don't see ratings gold in a march against black-on-black crime. They do, however, anytime there is a story that is guaranteed to generate controversy. The problem is not that the marches don't happen -- they do -- it's that we simply don't hear about them unless we live in the communities where the marches take place.
Perhaps there are also marches protesting against white-on-white crime that I don't know about. I've never heard of any. According to FBI crime statistics, 83% of white homicide victims were murdered by white assailants -- not very far off from the 90% black-on-black victims. I don't know if we're allowed to post links here so, if you wish, visit the FBI website (expanded homicide data) for a look-see. In any case, the reason for these high rates of same-race homicide are probably due in large part to proximity.(touched on by Dr. Cole in Point #2 of his post). If you're black and live in a predominantly black neighborhood, then chances are you would be victimized by someone of the same race. Likewise if you're white living in a predominantly white neighborhood. It's where you live, where you spend most if not all of your time, where you interact with others, and where you could end up on the wrong side of a disagreement, or whatever other motive leads to homicide.
On so many other issues, the media has been criticized (and rightfully so) for going out of their way to provide "balance." Often this supposed balance has the effect of giving equal legitimacy to each of two differing points of view (e.g., if two climatologists are given airtime to discuss the reality of global warming, they must be "balanced" against two climate-change deniers, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that global warming is real).
Putting the above example alongside media coverage of Israel/Palestine, we can see the glaring difference with respect to their purported efforts to provide balanced coverage.
"Balance" via equal airtime for two divergent viewpoints seems to be the norm only when it can be used to influence public opinion. Coverage that is heavily skewed in favor of Israel is done for the same reason. A more equitable coverage, which in the case of Israel/Palestine is merited, would be antithetical to their unstated goals.
I am reminded of a post by the Rude Pundit from February 24 of this year showing that these same scary stories have been told even long before 1992. Here is a short list (paraphrased):
AP, 4/25/84: Jane's Defense Weekly reports that Iran will have nukes by 1986. The bomb is being developed in Boushahar.
AFP, 12/4/91: German intelligence chief states that Iran will have the bomb by 2000.
WP, 10/18/92: Head of Israel's military intelligence states that Iran will have nukes by the end of the decade; British and French intelligence believes it will happen earlier; head of National Council of Resistance of Iran believes it will happen in three to five years.
AP, 2/12/93: Iran will have nukes within six years.
Guardian, 1/6/95: American and Israeli officials say Iran will have nukes in less than five years
AFP, 4/9/98: Iran already HAS nukes; they obtained warheads from a former Soviet republic in the early 1990s, according to the Jerusalem Post, who supposedly had access to Iranian documents obtained by Israel.
I'm sure that those stories are only the tip of the iceberg. This story has been going on for close to 30 years at the very least. It's rather convenient that Iran is always just a few years away.