Cornell West tries to give an education…Unfortunately being of Faux News, Megan has to pander to the resident Uncle Tom…
Cornell West tries to give an education…Unfortunately being of Faux News, Megan has to pander to the resident Uncle Tom…
It doesn’t get any funnier!
Bunch of things wrong here.
1. Most black folks are a bit wary of strange right-wing white folks waving cameras at a Civil Rights meeting – something to do with COINTELPRO trying to create dirt on MLK in the Civil Rights Movement days, James Keen/Breitbart’s fake white pimp videos to attack ACORN, and the fake Shirley Sherrod video… Their history in abusing the medium precedes them.
2. To be the “Gestapo”…You have to be in charge. Sorta like the old Russian KGB…You ARE the government. I haven’t seen any evidence the BlacLivesMatters is running the country …Yet…But one can always hope.
3. O’Reilly blackmails a low level Fox Reporter with the question. Faced with the choice of getting fired, or kissing O’Reilly’s behind – she punts with “I don’t know” to O’Liars’s pandering question.
On Wednesday, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly highlighted a reporter who tried to cover a Black Lives Matter protest in Chicago but was told to turn off his camera by activists. O’Reilly somehow linked that to black-on-black crime, the condemnation of white people and himself as the reporter giving the most coverage to the Black Lives Matter movement. Also: Nazis.
While he’s smart for trolling America on a nightly basis, in this case, Bill O’Reilly isn’t funny, he’s dangerous. As countless black people die at the hands of police and random white people likeDylann Roof feel empowered to murder churchgoers, O’Reilly still thinks race baiting is a timely joke. It’s not.
Last night during O’Reilly’s chat with Andrea Tantaros and Jehmu Greene, Tantaros speculated that the Black Lives Matter movement will protest outside of the Republican National Convention next year but was somehow befuddled as to why they wouldn’t protest outside of the Democratic National Convention.
On the other side, as Greene tried to explain that she understood the anger exhibited by the protestors captured on tape but didn’t agree with their demand to turn the reporter’s camera off, O’Reilly cut her off and compared the activists to … the Nazis.
“Their message means nothing if they do these gestapo tactics, they lose all credibility,” he said. “Their message will only fall on ears sympathetic to them.”
Bill O’Reilly compared the Black Lives Matter movement to the gestapo Wednesday night, shortly before proclaiming he is the reporter who has done the most to “shed light” on violence against young black men.
During a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly and Fox News commentator Andrea Tantaros discussed a Black Lives Matter conference in Ohio where attendees prevented a reporter from filming.
“Their message means nothing if they do these gestapo tactics,” O’Reilly said. “They lose all credibility. The group is never going to be taken seriously.”
It’s unclear how the gestapo — the Nazi secret police group dedicated to oppressing and terrorizing Jews, gay people, and basically anyone the Nazis deemed undesirable — is at all similar to a group that fights the oppression and brutalization of black people by law enforcement in the U.S.
Less than a minute later, O’Reilly asked Fox News correspondent Jehmu Greene, “The reporter in this country who has shed the most light on young black men being killed is who?” When Greene said she didn’t know, O’Reilly informed her, “That would be me.”
If by “shedding light,” O’Reilly means using debunked statistics to downplay police brutality, he’s right.
O’Reilly’s criticisms of Black Lives Matter are notably inconsistent. His “gestapo” comment came just one day after he criticized the movement for being “anarchistic” — a trait not exactly typically linked to Nazi-like behavior.
Hannity gets miffed Eleanor Holmes-Norton, the Congressional Representative from Washington, DC won’t all into debating his racist baiting…
Hannity tries to use a tried conservatwerp racist technique, which is to try and force the other person to argue on behalf of their racist imagination. Ergo – to become the perfect foil for their poor argument. Holmes sticks to her guns…And Hannity looks like a fool.
Way to go, Congresswoman!
The bigots at Faux News have done it again in creating a fake story about the “Knockout Game” to justify racism. A white “copycat” conservative punk moron has decided to duplicate the fictional ” massively growing crime wave” by beating up a 79 year old black man. Hopefully this guy gets a real judge instead of a conservative appointed lackey, and gets some real jail time. It would be absolutely perfect if he got to share a cell for the next 10 years or so with a real black thug – perhaps one who committed the same crime. Maybe even get the chance to do a little “jailhouse community servicing” to open his eyes to the fact committing a crime and paying the price of going to jail, where almost all of the black thugs wind up …
Isn’t a vacation on the Med.
Did you hear? A white guy in Texas punched an elderly black man in the jaw, so of course he gets charged with a hate crime, because he’s white. White people arealways the victims. Also: the perpetrator allegedly used a slur and talked about attacking a black guy.
Happily, the “knockout game” phenomenon is coasting on fumes at this point, given that it’s 1) two months old and 2) not actually a real “trend.” Thursday’s announcement of federal hate crime charges injected a spark back into the idea, though, thanks to its cutting right to the chase: This is an issue of race.
The conservative Washington Times reports the new development, capturing a lot in one sentence. “Most knockout victims that have appeared in news reports have been white but the Justice Department said in this instance the victim was a 79-year-old black man, and stepped in with federal charges.” The response to the storyon Twitter, the Internet’s comments section, gives you a taste of precisely what you’d expect, outrage at a white assailant getting charges while a black man wouldn’t. The Washington Times‘ Emily Miller offered one of the more restrained responses: “So only white on black is hate?”
First, there are the specifics of Thursday’s case. The Justice Department “said in this instance” the victim was an elderly black man because, in this instance, the victim was an elderly black man. And the attorney general stepped in with federal charges because the perpetrator of the attack, Conrad Alvin Barrett, videotaped both the punch (which broke the older man’s jaw) and his motivation for it. That motivation was, allegedly, racial. The department’s press release alleges that Barrett at one point “makes a racial slur.” In another video, he is reported to have said, “The plan is to see if I were to hit a black person, would this be nationally televised?” After he hit the old man, Barrett is apparently heard yelling, “knockout!” in the video.
The Justice Department addresses the idea of this as a fad: “According to the complaint, the conduct has been called by other names and there have been similar incidents dating as far back as 1992.” This isn’t a 2013 thing where black people pick out white people to be punched. It’s a two-decade-old rarity that suddenly became a media sensation.
Let’s go back to the Times’ s Emily Miller. In November, Amrit Marajh was charged with a hate crime after punching a Jewish man in Brooklyn. Marajh is a person of color; his victim, white. The Washington Times covered it — the paper has written on the topic hundreds of times — but the Marajh story didn’t do nearly as well as today’s article.
Of course it didn’t. When the Times suggests that most “victims that have appeared in news reports” are white, they’re tipping their hand. Most coverage of the attacks has been driven by conservative outlets like the Times, which have not been shy about suggesting a racial disparity. We wrote about World Net Daily’s efforts to that end earlier this month. The attacks are always about race in media coverage because the alleged racial targeting of whites by blacks is the only reason people care about the attacks. It’s not necessarily a conscious filtering, but it is a filter that is applied.
The other recently popular knockout attack was a video usually given a title like “Knockout Game Goes Terribly Wrong.” That’s what BeforeItsNews called it, grabbing the video from WorldStarHipHop. In that video, a black man approaches a woman, who somehow — the tape gets blurry — gets the attacker on the ground and starts hitting him. Another man comes running in and kicks the alleged assailant. This video made it onto essentially every conservative outlet, as AboveTopSecretpoints out, all of which use the same frame for the story: black guy gets what’s coming. At last, a victory for the white team in this “knockout game” thing. (SeeReddit’s comments, if you dare.)
But! In a correction, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze adds a key detail: “Las Vegas Police Department spokesman Larry Hadfield told The Blaze Monday it appears the involved individuals had contact with each other before.” This isn’t a random attack, if it was even an attack at all. It’s dumb jerks being dumb jerks as dumb jerks have done for time immemorial. But by adding it into the “knockout game” genre — obviously incorrectly — and by picturing a white person fighting back against a black assailant, it got huge web traffic.
The weird thing about the Barrett attack — one of thousands of random attacks involving people of various races — is that it likely wouldn’t have happened without the media making “the knockout game” into an official sensation. Barrett allegedly wanted to see what happened when a white guy hit a black guy in the knockout game, because he hadn’t seen those covered by the media. Now he knows what would happen. And some of the same people that helped create the knockout game are, however indirectly, rising to his defense. He’s a victim, too.
First the Faux News racist sensationalism –
The stories are chilling–conjuring a world of senseless, alien violence as incomprehensible as it is reprehensible. Rightfully, we are mortified and outraged and we fear for a country in which A Clockwork Orange ultra-violence finds life in our streets. The analysis of many pundits is startling: these attacks are racially motivated hate crimes against whites by black youths and the media and our politicians refuse to identify these racist motives out of political correctness.
What goes mostly unspoken in these commentaries on the “knockout game” is the idea that these assaults are racially motivated and so white people should be wary of groups of black men. Some take this further and blame the “liberal media” for the violence, since the media allegedly hid the “truth” about the race of the criminals. If only the media would tell us when black people attack white people, we’d know to not trust them and we’d be safe, the logic goes.
But are these pundits correct? Are these crimes committed by roaming packs of black “savages” against white people?
Here’s the fascinating thing about this “spreading” trend: nobody seems to have any evidence that it’s spreading, or that it’s new, or that it’s racially motivated, or that black youths are the ones typically responsible, or that whites are typically targeted. This hasn’t stopped Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, andMatt Walsh from describing this specifically as a crime committed by blacks against whites, CNN from claiming that it is “spreading,” or Alec Torres at NRO from say it is “evidently increasing [in] popularity.” Most sources claim that it is spreading, and a number of sources claim that it is racially motivated. But how do they know? Where are they getting their data from?
Alec Torres wrote what appears to be the most thorough survey of all the reported accounts of the “knockout game,” but these “reports” are actually newspaper reports, not police reports, so they don’t give us a reliable picture. Yet, Torres is confident enough to conclude: “Most of the victims have been whites and Asians, and attackers tend to target Jews, immigrants, and the elderly in particular. Most of the attackers have been African American.”
“Most” is an awfully slippery word to describe a increasingly popular, violent hate crime.
What’s very perplexing about Torres’s post is that he quotes multiple times from an award-winning article by John H. Tucker in Riverfront Times titled, Knockout King: Kids call it a game. Academics call it a bogus trend. Cops call it murder. I say this citation is perplexing because Tucker’s article explains quite clearly why sweeping claims about rising incidences of the “knockout game” and the racial identities of the perpetrators and victims are bogus. Tucker helps us see how many commentaries about these assaults are deeply flawed.
First of all, we don’t have reliable data:
A variety of factors make it impossible to quantify how many assaults can be attributed to Knockout King. For one, police often categorize such attacks as attempted robberies; though participants say theft isn’t the motive, they’ve been known to add larceny to injury when the opportunity presents itself. Moreover, because victims usually don’t get a good look at their assailant, incidents seldom result in charges. Many of the most vulnerable victims don’t file police reports, either because they fear revenge or were taught in their native countries not to trust police.
In order to draw any remotely competent conclusion about these assaults, you’d have to deal with all the above problems and also consider if crimes by whites are reported as frequently as crimes by blacks, whether teens of other races might refer to the game by another name or not label it at all, how the percentage of attacks by blacks compares to the general percentage of assaults by black teens, and so on. Analyzing data is not as simple as watching some YouTube videos and Googling “knockout game.” Here’s Tucker again:
Given that 4.3 million violent attacks were reported by U.S. citizens in 2009, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, Males [a research fellow at the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice] says reporters should know better than to highlight a handful of random attacks by kids and call it journalism. It’s the same thing as plucking a few instances of attackers with Jewish surnames who beat up non-Jews and declaring it a “troubling new trend,” he argues.
All but two of the ten victims . . . interviewed were white (one was black and was Latino), and all of the players were black. But Knockout King does not appear to be bounded by race. Jason, from St. Louis County, says two white friends were part of his punch-out crew. One Dutchtown woman, agreeing to speak on the condition that her name not be published, says police caught her son, who is white, playing Knockout King. . . .
“It’s not a black thing, it’s a kid thing,” the woman says. “It’s teenage kids trying to be cool. My son’s as white as can be. He doesn’t have a black bone in his body.”
How could Torres read this article and yet still come to the conclusion that the assaults are on the rise and that “most” of them involve black assailants and white or asian victims? In his defense, other pundits have drawn the same conclusion, despite the lack of evidence.
Of course, there are some things we can confidently say about these crimes: “Most criminologists and youth experts agree that unprovoked attacks by teenagers on strangers are a real, if extremely rare, phenomenon,” notes Tucker. What’s more, unquestionably these attacks are horrid and inhumane, Mark Steyn is right that these perpetrators lack a basic moral fortitude, the guilty parties must be apprehended and punished, and the public should be warned about the realities of random violent crime. And we might even admit that some of these assaults appear to have been hate crimes. None of these claims are objectionable because we have evidence for them.
What we don’t have evidence for is the claim that this “game” is becoming increasingly popular or that it is part of a larger problem of black mob violence which the media is ignoring. To support such absurd claims we need to turn elsewhere, away from the experts and the data, to a man who has made a name for himself peddling a book which purports to show that a covert race war is being waged by blacks against whites all across the country, and the knockout game is just one weapon in their arsenal.
Before almost anyone else was talking about the “knockout game,” Colin Flaherty was reporting on it and other incidences of what he calls “black mob violence” for WorldNetDaily, the notoriously deceptive, far-right news and opinions site. His schtick is simple: every time he finds a report of black “mob” violence or black on white violence, he writes about it. He’s compiled many of these incidences into his book, White Girl Bleed A Lot, which is ranked #1,455 under “Books” at Amazon as of Sunday evening, 24th of November. Its high ranking is undoubtedly due to the press he’s been getting. Hannity had him on his radio show. And Thomas Sowell’s article on the knockout game, which was published in the New York Post and the National Review Online, cites Flaherty and repeats much of the WND author’s rhetoric about the national epidemic of racial violence that the media has covered up. This isn’t too surprising, since Sowell’s original review of the book was actually published on the NRO’s website, where he gave the book high praise. His book has also received praise from Allen West, David Horowitz, and American Thinker.
What’s surprising about all the positive press Flaherty has received is that his articles purporting to prove this epidemic of black racial violence are incredibly, basically absurd. And that absurdity, the lengths Flaherty is willing to go to support his assertion about the secret race war can really only be interpreted as bigotry. Flaherty deceives his readers to sell his book, peddling the classic white fear of the savage, violent, black man, mixed in with a little contemporary rhetoric about how the “liberal,” politically correct media is covering up for black thugs. This narrative fits nicely into the larger perception that Obama has created a nation of entitled, lazy, and violent blacks, which I have written about before.
The most basic flaw in his argument is that his entire project is one big stacked evidence fallacy. If you only cite examples of black crime, of course you’ll conclude that there’s a national racial crime wave! Using that “logic” I can prove that any group is waging a secret race war (it is interesting to note that Robert Spencer of JihadWatch uses a very similar method to argue that Muslims are dangerous). On top of that egregious error, Flaherty entirely ignores all other characteristics of the crimes: social class, education, setting; nothing else matters except race to him. Any respectable criminologist would scoff at such a methodology, not because they want to be politically correct, but because it’s a gross reduction of the factors that actually contribute to crime. Next, Flaherty fails to recognize that correlation does not equal causation. So, because a black person commits a violent crime, his blackness must have caused it, in Flaherty’s logic. And because a black party got out of hand, it’s a “race riot.” Yes, that’s right, because the partiers were black, it was a “race” riot. Because “black” is a race. Makes perfect sense, right?
When the media doesn’t mention that a violent crime was committed by a black person, that’s evidence of a cover up for Flaherty. In one article, he describes calling and emailing the police to try to learn the racial makeup of a party that turned into a “mob”:
“What happened? Was this a case of black mob violence?”
No reply. I get that a lot. It is a red flag.
So, he called the police and explicitly asked if an incident was “black mob violence,” and when he got no reply, it was confirmation to him that the police were hiding the truth. My guess is that in most of these cases, the media and police are silent about the race of the perpetrators because “race” isn’t really a factor in the crimes.
Colin Flaherty and his project have been cited repeatedly to support the claim that the “knockout game” is really about racial violence against whites. He’s been cited to this end not just in far-right publications like WND, or FrontPageMag, but in the National Review Online, one of the most respected conservative journals, and one that I like to recommend. His conspiracy is extremely racist, as Flaherty reduces everything down to the color of the criminal’s skin, regardless of the facts. He consistently distorts the truth in order to portray black people as the savage, animalistic, and Other.
We need to be honest and accurate about these crimes, neither sharing the hysteria and racial fear-mongering nor trivializing the reality of these crimes. This isn’t easy to balance. We have the right to be concerned about random violence and the authorities have the responsibility to protect us and prosecute violent criminals. But we also have the responsibility to tell the truth about our neighbor and the world.
And no Faux news race baiting is complete without the resident ncle Tom –