Charlottesville: Who reported on it correctly?

[icehorse]

Yes we know Trump did a bad job, no argument. But which news agency got it right?

My summary is:

- We should deplore the alt-right.
- We must defend their right to speech.
- Extremists on both the left and the right initiated violence.
- While I normally support the cops, they screwed up this time.

I have watched many reports of this incident, I haven't seen any make these clear points. The Rebel seemed closest to me, and they are advocacy journalists.

 

[Quintessence]

Good news journalists wouldn't make statements along the lines of your first two points because that treads into opinion/commentary rather than reporting on the facts in an impartial manner or putting those facts within the context of history. The fourth statement borders on opinion/commentary as well. "Got it right" should not mean "agrees with my values and the meaning that I take from these events" and should mean "reports impartially to get a balanced and truthful story." Keep the opinions to opinion pieces, and the news to the news. The quality of journalism has deteriorated to the point the lines between these get blurred more than they should, though there are places that still do a good job (the New York Times for example).

 

[icehorse]

Good news journalists wouldn't make statements along the lines of your first two points because that treads into opinion/commentary rather than reporting on the facts in an impartial manner or putting those facts within the context of history.

Much of what I've seen in the "news" boils down to: "we should deplore the alt-right".

The fourth statement borders on opinion/commentary as well. "Got it right" should not mean "agrees with my values and the meaning that I take from these events" and should mean "reports impartially to get a balanced and truthful story." Keep the opinions to opinion pieces, and the news to the news. The quality of journalism has deteriorated to the point the lines between these get blurred more than they should, though there are places that still do a good job (the New York Times for example).

I don't think it's merely an opinion that the authorities need to keep speakers with permits safe against rioters.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it's merely an opinion that the authorities need to keep speakers with permits safe against rioters.

It's still an opinion, & not one widely shared by people who oppose the groups speaking.

 

[icehorse]

It's still an opinion, & not one widely shared by people who oppose the groups speaking.

Is that like saying the Constitution is a collection of opinions? Are you making a philosophical claim?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that like saying the Constitution is a collection of opinions? Are you making a philosophical claim?

It indeed is a collection of opinions.
And those opinions became law.
It's also an opinion that speakers must be protected.

 

[icehorse]

It indeed is a collection of opinions.
And those opinions became law.
It's also an opinion that speakers must be protected.

Well if you're making philosophical claims, I have to agree, But more to the point, if speakers cannot speak safely, then we don't have free speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if you're making philosophical claims, I have to agree, But more to the point, if speakers cannot speak safely, then we don't have free speech.

This is why I agree with the opinion.
But many would disagree when they hate the speakers.

 

[Quintessence]

Much of what I've seen in the "news" boils down to: "we should deplore the alt-right".

Well, yeah... much of the news is garbage. Good journalism is hard to come by nowadays.

I don't think it's merely an opinion that the authorities need to keep speakers with permits safe against rioters.

This statement is a great deal different than what you remarked in the opening post. Talking about who "screwed up" is commentary blame game. What you say here is not.

 

[icehorse]

This statement is a great deal different than what you remarked in the opening post. Talking about who "screwed up" is commentary blame game. What you say here is not.

Wait, I said in the OP that the cops screwed up. And if a society claims to have free speech, I think it's more than an opinion that it's the job of the authorities to protect speakers. It seems like you're really bending the definition of "opinion" ?

 

[Quintessence]

Wait, I said in the OP that the cops screwed up. And if a society claims to have free speech, I think it's more than an opinion that it's the job of the authorities to protect speakers.

I don't think you conveyed what you intended to in the opening post, then, because this is not what I got out of reading it.

 

[Stanyon]

Yes we know Trump did a bad job, no argument. But which news agency got it right?

My summary is:

- We should deplore the alt-right.
- We must defend their right to speech.
- Extremists on both the left and the right initiated violence.
- While I normally support the cops, they screwed up this time.

I have watched many reports of this incident, I haven't seen any make these clear points. The Rebel seemed closest to me, and they are advocacy journalists.

Trump condemned all sides equally and that was completely fair but that wasn't enough for his detractors, those pretending moral high ground, and politicians who felt the safest thing to do politically was call out Trump to unfairly castigate one group over another. There are many who try to paint Trump as an egotistical and unbending tyrant who wants to play God but this cartoon image has been shown to be false over and over again. Donald Trump capitulated and signed off onto the sanctions against Russia congress presented to him not because he felt it was the right thing to do but because he felt it was the will of the people through their elected officials whose conclusions about Russia came about from faulty and non-existent intelligence- that proverbial "nothing burger" Now Trump has capitulated and specifically condemned the white nationalists because that seems to be what is needed to placate the squeaky wheel types to help prevent more chaos, he listened to the people even though some of their minds have been poisoned with the rhetoric that only certain types of speech should be allowed the constitution be damned. It is true that the horns of fascism close in slowly and this current form of cultural fascism is well on it's way.

-The term alt-right seems to be overused and can and will be used to demonize anyone that doesn't go along with the left, it's a way of creating division where they may very well be none.
-Yes we should, especially when popular opinion of the day starts turning into fascism
-Yes extremists on both sides initiated violence so why single out one group over another?
-The police are often understaffed and under equipped to deal with large groups and those bent on chaos will do what they will do regardless.

The funny thing is that many people in the U.S. probably have never heard of ANTIFA which has been around as long as the Nazis and not much different. It will be interesting and very telling how CNN, MSNBC, and others report on ANTIFA in the coming months, the only question being "how can we blame ANTIFA on Trump?"

 

[Stevicus]

Yes we know Trump did a bad job, no argument. But which news agency got it right?

My summary is:

- We should deplore the alt-right.
- We must defend their right to speech.
- Extremists on both the left and the right initiated violence.
- While I normally support the cops, they screwed up this time.

I have watched many reports of this incident, I haven't seen any make these clear points. The Rebel seemed closest to me, and they are advocacy journalists.

I agree with your summary, although it seems the media (along with Trump) are just focusing on the symptoms while not delving into some of the deeper causes of this kind of event. Sometimes I wonder if America ever really recovered from the Civil War. Have we really been truly honest about the Civil War and the overall history of America? Are old wounds being reopened here?

It's easy to condemn violence. I condemn violence. It's easy to deplore the alt-right. I deplore the alt-right. But then what? What does any of this actually mean?

This isn't one of those incidents which can be resolved by simply asking "who started it?" Whoever started it, it was "started" a long time ago.

As for the cops, they may have screwed up, but it was a rather difficult situation to deal with. Maybe they can learn from this and find better strategies to keep things under control.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

My summary is:

- We should deplore the alt-right.
- We must defend their right to speech.

Yes to the first (but with the caveat that we stop using this 'alt-right' euphemism and call them what they are: neo-Nazis) and a definite 'no we must not' to the second. Far-right ideology consists of calling for groups of 'undesirables' (LGBTs, ethnic minorities, Jews, Muslims etc) to be killed. Incitement to murder is not, as far as I'm aware, considered protected speech.

- Extremists on both the left and the right initiated violence.

No, enough of this relativism ****. A neo-Nazi deliberately rammed a car into a peaceful counter-protest and killed someone. It wasn't self-defence; the white power ***** were't provoked first. It was ****ing murder and they started the violence.

- While I normally support the cops, they screwed up this time.

They definitely did. Apparently in fear for their lives, according to one or two sources, because the neo-Nazis were better armed and armoured than they were. Which is very revealing. We ought to remember this the next time American police shoot an unarmed black man in the back or on the ground because they were 'in fear for their lives'.

It's easy to condemn violence. I condemn violence. It's easy to deplore the alt-right. I deplore the alt-right. But then what?

How about we start calling them neo-Nazis or fascists instead of sad little euphemisms like 'the alt-right'?

 

[suncowiam]

Although the police might have appeared to have screwed up, I don't think they could have been fully prepared for such a mass organized event from both the alt-right and antifa.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes we know Trump did a bad job, no argument. But which news agency got it right?

My summary is:

- We should deplore the alt-right.
- We must defend their right to speech.
- Extremists on both the left and the right initiated violence.
- While I normally support the cops, they screwed up this time.

I have watched many reports of this incident, I haven't seen any make these clear points. The Rebel seemed closest to me, and they are advocacy journalists.

What I saw, viewing a very limited number of news sources, was that
Trump was great or Trump was terrible. Knowing the sources, I could'a
predicted the opinion disparity. People see what they wanna see.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes to the first (but with the caveat that we stop using this 'alt-right' euphemism and call them what they are: neo-Nazis) and a definite 'no we must not' to the second. Far-right ideology consists of calling for groups of 'undesirables' (LGBTs, ethnic minorities, Jews, Muslims etc) to be killed. Incitement to murder is not, as far as I'm aware, considered protected speech.




No, enough of this relativism ****. A neo-Nazi deliberately rammed a car into a peaceful counter-protest and killed someone. It wasn't self-defence; the white power ***** were't provoked first. It was ****ing murder and they started the violence.




They definitely did. Apparently in fear for their lives, according to one or two sources, because the neo-Nazis were better armed and armoured than they were. Which is very revealing. We ought to remember this the next time American police shoot an unarmed black man in the back or on the ground because they were 'in fear for their lives'.




How about we start calling them neo-Nazis or fascists instead of sad little euphemisms like 'the alt-right'?

I hate to burst your bubble, but antifa is an extremist group. They take justice into their own hands.

I don't support neo-nazis, fasicts or the alt-right, but I definitely do not support antifa.

Why don't we allocate a piece of land and just let all these groups go at it in one location while other lives and property are not at risk?

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm still trying to figure out who actually spelled it correctly.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I hate to burst your bubble, but antifa is an extremist group. They take justice into their own hands.

So often because those who enforce the the law aren't willing to do their job and protect people. Case in point - the police in Charlottesville. They didn't protect that town's citizens from a bunch of white supremacists marching through the place and killing or injuring people. If Antifa are 'extremists' for being violent towards neo-Nazis then it's a label I suspect more people would wear with pride. Neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer call for the killing of 'undesirables' (in Spencer's own words, it's 'peaceful genocide') and so often the authorities turn a blind eye when it matters.

If a neo-Nazi attacked an Antifa member unprovoked I presume you wouldn't have a problem with that Antifa dude hitting back in self-defence; so why would you take issue with him using violence against someone that's calling for people who are likely their family, friends or even themselves to be killed? Also, where's the evidence that Antifa started the violence in Charlottesville? It's worth bearing in mind that some of the white power trash came loaded for bear - they were better equipped than the police and were looking for a fight.

Neo-Nazism does not invite rational discourse nor accommodation because it is itself irrational.

I don't support neo-nazis, fasicts or the alt-right, but I definitely do not support antifa.

I'm not an Antifa fan myself given that they sometimes proclaim ex-Muslims as 'Islamophobes'.

Why don't we allocated a piece of land and just let all these groups go at it in one location while other lives and property are not at risk?

I have a better idea, why don't we throw all the white power freaks, neo-Nazis and other members of the 'alt-right' (using the term ironically here) into gas chambers? Give them a taste of what they call for every time some drunken skinhead changes the lyrics of a song to 'gas the Jews!'.

And, true to form, we now have Alex Jones of Infowars calling the white power marchers in Charlottesville 'Jewish actors' trying to frame the far-right.

 

[suncowiam]

So often because those who enforce the the law aren't willing to do their job and protect people. Case in point - the police in Charlottesville. They didn't protect that town's citizens from a bunch of white supremacists marching through the place and killing or injuring people. If Antifa are 'extremists' for being violent towards neo-Nazis then it's a label I suspect more people would wear with pride. Neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer call for the killing of 'undesirables' (in Spencer's own words, it's 'peaceful genocide') and so often the authorities turn a blind eye when it matters.

If a neo-Nazi attacked an Antifa member unprovoked I presume you wouldn't have a problem with that Antifa dude hitting back in self-defence; so why would you take issue with him using violence against someone that's calling for people who are likely their family, friends or even themselves to be killed? Also, where's the evidence that Antifa started the violence in Charlottesville? It's worth bearing in mind that some of the white power trash came loaded for bear - they were better equipped than the police and were looking for a fight.

Neo-Nazism does not invite rational discourse nor accommodation because it is itself irrational.




I'm not an Antifa fan myself given that they sometimes proclaim ex-Muslims as 'Islamophobes'.




I have a better idea, why don't we throw all the white power freaks, neo-Nazis and other members of the 'alt-right' (using the term ironically here) into gas chambers? Give them a taste of what they call for every time some drunken skinhead changes the lyrics of a song to 'gas the Jews!'.

And, true to form, we now have Alex Jones of Infowars calling the white power marchers in Charlottesville 'Jewish actors' trying to frame the far-right.

I do not know all the facts, but given what I've seen from the news and from an HBO special... The alt-right had permits and confirmed with state and city officials to have a public display. IMO, they did what was necessary to voice their opinions even if they despicable. I will give them that for trying to be civil with their right of speech.

Antifa also has a right to protest.

I can't say who became violent first so that's for another jury to decide.

As I stated in a previous comment, the police was out-numbered for this particular event. They should have been protecting folks from both sides given footage of what I've seen.