Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
You know what would be breaking news, if someone in this Admin was not actually corrupt.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his wife took a security detail on their vacation to Greece and Turkey last year, official documents show, in what one watchdog group said could be a "questionable" use of taxpayer resources.
Zinke has faced questions for months over his travel expenses and use of official resources, as have other members of President Donald Trump's administration such as EPA leader Scott Pruitt, who was revealed Tuesday to have spent $30,000 on security for an official trip to Italy last year.
Unlike Pruitt, Zinke was not conducting government business during his two-week vacation, which included stops in Istanbul and the Greek Isles. The documents do not reveal exactly how many security personnel accompanied the couple, who paid for them, how much they cost or whether they traveled with Zinke and his wife, Lola, for the entire trip.
Interior provided U.S. Park Police officers for Zinke’s security because of worries of violence in the region, department spokeswoman Heather Swift said.
“The United States secretary of the Interior is in the presidential line of succession and has access to sensitive and classified information, which makes his protection a matter of national security,” Swift said. “In 2016 there were at least 5 terrorist attacks in Istanbul where the secretary traveled. During the period of travel there were several security incidents and threats in the region. Both of these considerations further merited a prudent security presence.”
Only two agencies — the State Department and the Secret Service — have specific authority allowing them to provide security to executive branch officials, according to a Government Accountability Office report. Despite that, Cabinet members in the 1990s came under scrutiny for traveling with security teams, a matter the GAO reported on in 1994.
“It's not necessarily an abuse of authority or a waste of taxpayer dollars if there's a credible threat, but it can be questionable if an agency chief just wants a big entourage and the trappings of power,” said Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations at the government watchdog group Project On Government Oversight. “Security personnel are not errand boys or girls and agency leaders are not royalty."
He added: "When it's a private vacation, there must be even more scrutiny given to these security arrangements than usual."
Obama administration Interior Secretary Sally Jewell abstained from traveling with security teams, said Kate Kelly, who served as senior adviser to Jewell and is now director of the public lands program at the Center for American Progress.
On March 22 2018 21:01 farvacola wrote: Fair enough, but having looked at the article in question instead of just the tweet, it would seem fair to allocate blame to NYT's twitter more than the article itself.
It's not like the twitter isn't part of the NYT and under their supervision. As such, longstanding patterns indicated by the age of the Trayvon tweet, the empathetic nazi profile, and more gives me confidence in not trying to lay this at the feet of some intern, but something brought to the editorial/management staff and dismissed as unimportant.
Actually I believe they see twitter's job to do advertising. And screamy headlines bring in the clicks. Seeing tabloid tactics from respectable papers is sad, but given how the squeeze is on all newspapers to make money *somehow*, it's not surprising.
Remember how people were all up in arms about CA using racism to promote their ideology, this is the NYT using racism for profit and that's being used as an unfortunate justification rather than being pointed out as deplorable from an allegedly respected outlet.
I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, it doesn't seem like that was the only way they had of getting more clicks, considering they could have talked about how trayvon was all nice too.
On March 22 2018 21:01 farvacola wrote: Fair enough, but having looked at the article in question instead of just the tweet, it would seem fair to allocate blame to NYT's twitter more than the article itself.
It's not like the twitter isn't part of the NYT and under their supervision. As such, longstanding patterns indicated by the age of the Trayvon tweet, the empathetic nazi profile, and more gives me confidence in not trying to lay this at the feet of some intern, but something brought to the editorial/management staff and dismissed as unimportant.
Actually I believe they see twitter's job to do advertising. And screamy headlines bring in the clicks. Seeing tabloid tactics from respectable papers is sad, but given how the squeeze is on all newspapers to make money *somehow*, it's not surprising.
Remember how people were all up in arms about CA using racism to promote their ideology, this is the NYT using racism for profit and that's being used as an unfortunate justification rather than being pointed out as deplorable from an allegedly respected outlet.
Except that I'm not sure it is racism. It's a screamy headline about the new findings (the toxicology report). I am not saying they aren't biased. I believe they probably are. I just don't think the world is black or white. And the NYT's behaviour here is slightly grey, and CA's behaviour is black as pitch.
I'm less concerned about trying to nail down the NYT for being racist than I am in pointing out they are intentionally exploiting racial animosities and stereotypes for profit and that they are doing it by making victims out of white criminals, and criminalizing black victims.
They are just one of many and happen to be one often touted as above the fray and their perceived integrity needs to be taken down a few notches. This one, where they neglect to mention so much of the newsworthy stuff and advertise it with the tweet they did was just too blatant to go unnoticed.
We have a 25 minute confession from the bomber and yet we have no idea what his reasoning was, why do folks suppose that is?
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his wife took a security detail on their vacation to Greece and Turkey last year, official documents show, in what one watchdog group said could be a "questionable" use of taxpayer resources.
Zinke has faced questions for months over his travel expenses and use of official resources, as have other members of President Donald Trump's administration such as EPA leader Scott Pruitt, who was revealed Tuesday to have spent $30,000 on security for an official trip to Italy last year.
Unlike Pruitt, Zinke was not conducting government business during his two-week vacation, which included stops in Istanbul and the Greek Isles. The documents do not reveal exactly how many security personnel accompanied the couple, who paid for them, how much they cost or whether they traveled with Zinke and his wife, Lola, for the entire trip.
Interior provided U.S. Park Police officers for Zinke’s security because of worries of violence in the region, department spokeswoman Heather Swift said.
“The United States secretary of the Interior is in the presidential line of succession and has access to sensitive and classified information, which makes his protection a matter of national security,” Swift said. “In 2016 there were at least 5 terrorist attacks in Istanbul where the secretary traveled. During the period of travel there were several security incidents and threats in the region. Both of these considerations further merited a prudent security presence.”
Only two agencies — the State Department and the Secret Service — have specific authority allowing them to provide security to executive branch officials, according to a Government Accountability Office report. Despite that, Cabinet members in the 1990s came under scrutiny for traveling with security teams, a matter the GAO reported on in 1994.
“It's not necessarily an abuse of authority or a waste of taxpayer dollars if there's a credible threat, but it can be questionable if an agency chief just wants a big entourage and the trappings of power,” said Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations at the government watchdog group Project On Government Oversight. “Security personnel are not errand boys or girls and agency leaders are not royalty."
He added: "When it's a private vacation, there must be even more scrutiny given to these security arrangements than usual."
Obama administration Interior Secretary Sally Jewell abstained from traveling with security teams, said Kate Kelly, who served as senior adviser to Jewell and is now director of the public lands program at the Center for American Progress.
I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
However, upon farva's message, I did go ahead and open the NYT story being linked with that screamy headline, and the bit about Trayvon Martin being expelled for possessing marihuana is at most a footnote in what the article is about.
However, I am not sure what NYT's twitter behaviour is like at all. If that was simply cherry picked out of hundreds of tweets that day saying all kinds of other things about the article, then it's incredibly disingenuous. If it's the only tweet, and in fact, a systematic way of advertising their articles, then this is not simply an anecdote, but an example of more overarching behaviour that is not much better at all than what CA did.
I don't really see why people are giving NYT the benefit of the doubt over GH's accusations. Granted GH hasn't offered undeniable proof of NYT's motive, but looking at the past behavior of NYT hardly shows a company that is beyond moral reproach. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I would die if I didn't answer correctly the question of whether or not NYT engages in morally questionable behavior (including racial pandering) for profits, I would answer yes.
Really, based off what I've seen of other major corporations, you could replace NYT with any of them and I'd answer yes until proven innocent. Given the priority of making profits in a capitalist economy coupled with the psychology of humans in positions of power, it's the safest answer.
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
If that's what I was doing I would agree. That was just me providing some slight context, if you guys really want a detailed and elongated exposition as to the substance of these claims I would be willing to provide it in reasonable time.
But I would expect an equally detailed and substantial response or no one to refute the claim. But a detailed analysis showing multiple instances of a long period of time can't then be dismissed with unsubstantial "but I don't think it's that way or fair to do that" type responses.
I'm willing to go there if you guys really want to, but I suspect you don't because really, we're only at a matter of degree, neither of you seem to actually disagree with the substance of the claim as it stands.
On March 22 2018 21:38 Ryzel wrote: I don't really see why people are giving NYT the benefit of the doubt over GH's accusations. Granted GH hasn't offered undeniable proof of NYT's motive, but looking at the past behavior of NYT hardly shows a company that is beyond moral reproach. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I would die if I didn't answer correctly the question of whether or not NYT engages in morally questionable behavior (including racial pandering) for profits, I would answer yes.
Really, based off what I've seen of other major corporations, you could replace NYT with any of them and I'd answer yes until proven innocent.
If someone put a gun to my head and asked me that, I would answer whatever I thought the gunman wanted me to say
"Families and friends thought he was a kind person" comes out almost every time someone goes mental killing people. I don't see why this time would be different.
On March 22 2018 21:41 Gorsameth wrote: "Families and friends thought he was a kind person" comes out almost every time a white person goes mental killing people. I don't see why this time would be different.
FTFY
When people use "goes mental" in this way is it from the perspective that all crime is a result of mental instability, just violent crime, just murder, or what?
On March 22 2018 21:38 Ryzel wrote: I don't really see why people are giving NYT the benefit of the doubt over GH's accusations. Granted GH hasn't offered undeniable proof of NYT's motive, but looking at the past behavior of NYT hardly shows a company that is beyond moral reproach. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I would die if I didn't answer correctly the question of whether or not NYT engages in morally questionable behavior (including racial pandering) for profits, I would answer yes.
Really, based off what I've seen of other major corporations, you could replace NYT with any of them and I'd answer yes until proven innocent.
If someone put a gun to my head and asked me that, I would answer whatever I thought the gunman wanted me to say
Hah, yeah fair enough but you know what I mean
The idea behind the hypothetical was to remove "abstain until proved beyond a line of my choosing" as an answer and only allow "yes" or "no".
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
If that's what I was doing I would agree. That was just me providing some slight context, if you guys really want a detailed and elongated exposition as to the substance of these claims I would be willing to provide it in reasonable time.
But I would expect an equally detailed and substantial response or no one to refute the claim. But a detailed analysis showing multiple instances of a long period of time can't then be dismissed with unsubstantial "but I don't think it's that way or fair to do that" type responses.
I'm willing to go there if you guys really want to, but I suspect you don't because really, we're only at a matter of degree, neither of you seem to actually disagree with the substance of the claim as it stands.
If you were able to show that the NYT uses racist biases in order to advertise its articles on Twitter over a long period of time on a wide ranging and comparable set of topics, then yes, I would be interested in it. However, as it stands, all you've provided as evidence is a couple of tweets that lack any sort of context or meaning outside of trying to prove a point that I think a lot of people presuppose, which is that "the media" is racist.
What can be asserted essentially without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. I don't need to prove the NYT is not racist, I just need to contend with the assertions you are making, and they are definitely too broad to be based on what you've presented.
I agree that there are definitely some segments of the NYT's operations that could be characterized as racist, but as you seem to be aware, that criticism extends to large swaths of the media institutions in the United States. The question really is a matter of degree, because the NYT makes far more of an effort to correct these biases than much of the media. Your argument essentially is that the NYT is no better than the rest of the media in this respect, and I'd certainly like to see you make a comparison between the NYT and various other media outlets on their coverage of these topics and see who comes out looking the worst.
On March 22 2018 21:38 Ryzel wrote: I don't really see why people are giving NYT the benefit of the doubt over GH's accusations. Granted GH hasn't offered undeniable proof of NYT's motive, but looking at the past behavior of NYT hardly shows a company that is beyond moral reproach. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I would die if I didn't answer correctly the question of whether or not NYT engages in morally questionable behavior (including racial pandering) for profits, I would answer yes.
Really, based off what I've seen of other major corporations, you could replace NYT with any of them and I'd answer yes until proven innocent. Given the priority of making profits in a capitalist economy coupled with the psychology of humans in positions of power, it's the safest answer.
Yeah, but no one is holding a gun to your head, so there's definitely some room for doubt when it comes to discussing a topic like this. It's a pointless thought experiment to make blind judgments as if this is a black and white issue.
The real issue here is that people use criticisms like these to excuse the behavior of media outlets like Fox News, with claims that they are "just like the rest of the MSM" or whatever and that somehow means they shouldn't be held to any standard whatsoever.
Perhaps more importantly, these accusations are levied against these institutions again when they challenge people in power, such as the Trump administration. "Look at how biased and bad the MSM is, surely they are lying about the president".
That's why it's important to be exacting with this sort of critique. The NYT is a very important institution in terms of the journalism it does and it is worth defending against poorly-made accusations because its credibility is of a high importance.
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
If that's what I was doing I would agree. That was just me providing some slight context, if you guys really want a detailed and elongated exposition as to the substance of these claims I would be willing to provide it in reasonable time.
But I would expect an equally detailed and substantial response or no one to refute the claim. But a detailed analysis showing multiple instances of a long period of time can't then be dismissed with unsubstantial "but I don't think it's that way or fair to do that" type responses.
I'm willing to go there if you guys really want to, but I suspect you don't because really, we're only at a matter of degree, neither of you seem to actually disagree with the substance of the claim as it stands.
If you were able to show that the NYT uses racist biases in order to advertise its articles on Twitter over a long period of time on a wide ranging and comparable set of topics, then yes, I would be interested in it. However, as it stands, all you've provided as evidence is a couple of tweets that lack any sort of context or meaning outside of trying to prove a point that I think a lot of people presuppose, which is that "the media" is racist.
What can be asserted essentially without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. I don't need to prove the NYT is not racist, I just need to contend with the assertions you are making, and they are definitely too broad to be based on what you've presented.
I agree that there are definitely some segments of the NYT's operations that could be characterized as racist, but as you seem to be aware, that criticism extends to large swaths of the media institutions in the United States. The question really is a matter of degree, because the NYT makes far more of an effort to correct these biases than much of the media. Your argument essentially is that the NYT is no better than the rest of the media in this respect, and I'd certainly like to see you make a comparison between the NYT and various other media outlets on their coverage of these topics and see who comes out looking the worst.
Fair points, let me request this before I go about all that work.
Can you show me an example of the NYT giving a comparably positive/empathetic headline to the white killers I've provided examples for something comparable where the suspect is black?
Where a black person killed several innocent people and the NYT wrote a tweet or a headlined a piece or anything comparable.
You can be right that my examples haven't proven my claim conclusively (or to your satisfaction), but you haven't any examples that your supposition is true. I think we need a few of those before I make a 20 point list and compare it to your 20 point list.
So I'll wait on the examples of black killers/white victims getting comparable treatments as the inverse or presume there are none (as you are beyond the ones I've already provided).
EDIT: If your fear is that my point is to exculpate Fox News of their hideously plain propaganda, rest assured, that's not my ambition.
Our AG must be going ape shit. Those users, and homeless could be sitting in private prisons contributing towards the economy.
The debate about the legalization of marijuana has been prevalent in North American culture for over 50 years. The decision by the state of Colorado in October 2014 to legalize marijuana for recreational use was seen a revolutionary by those on both sides of the divide.
Since that decision was made nearly four years ago, the state of Colorado has seen an increase year on year in tax revenue gained from cannabis sales. In the most recent financial year, ending in June 2016, the state made nearly $70 million. Revenue gained through taxation was one of the key arguments for legalizing weed. Now that this argument has been clearly validated many taxpayers have been wondering what the state will do with the additional money.
The answer in one city is almost as revolutionary as the passing of the law itself. Aurora, the third largest city in Colorado, will be using over a third of the $4.5 million gained through the ‘weed tax’ to support local not-for-profit homeless organizations.
Over the course of the next three years, a total of over $3 million will be given to a series of groups across the city, all of which work tirelessly to provide hostels and food for the homeless community. The money will be paid out over the next three years, with $1.5 million promised before the end of the current financial year, which ends in June 2017.
The decision, which was approved in May 2016, has been lauded the world over as an example of how the legalization of marijuana can benefit, rather than damage, the local community. City Councilman Bob Roth believes it shows the people of Aurora the influence that local government can have. ‘We wanted to be able to show citizens that we are having a positive impact on the community and point to specific projects or initiatives to where that money is going to.’
With over 1000 homeless people on the streets of Aurora, this powerful example of local government working hard for the most vulnerable members of society will have a quantifiable and positive impact on the lives of people across the city.
Thus far not all of the money has been pledged to specific projects as the city is still working on the full list of projects that they wish to back. However, $220,000 has been given to the Colfax Community Network to support their operating costs. The money ensures that Colfax can continue their critical work, with further funds likely to be sent their way over the next two years.
Additionally, money has also been given to Comitis Crisis Center and Aurora Mental Health for each organization to buy a van and hire two care workers. This decision allows them to access homeless individuals who can’t reach their walk-in centers because of lack of funds for public transport.
One Aurora Housing Association will receive $45,000 to pay the salary of their landlord coordinator to allow them to work the role full-time. The job is vital to ensure the cycle of homelessness doesn’t continue, as landlords will often reject the applications of the formerly homeless. Alongside, these confirmed financial pledges the city is considering building and staffing a series of day centers across the city for homeless people to wash their clothes, receive mental health support and shower.
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
If that's what I was doing I would agree. That was just me providing some slight context, if you guys really want a detailed and elongated exposition as to the substance of these claims I would be willing to provide it in reasonable time.
But I would expect an equally detailed and substantial response or no one to refute the claim. But a detailed analysis showing multiple instances of a long period of time can't then be dismissed with unsubstantial "but I don't think it's that way or fair to do that" type responses.
I'm willing to go there if you guys really want to, but I suspect you don't because really, we're only at a matter of degree, neither of you seem to actually disagree with the substance of the claim as it stands.
If you were able to show that the NYT uses racist biases in order to advertise its articles on Twitter over a long period of time on a wide ranging and comparable set of topics, then yes, I would be interested in it. However, as it stands, all you've provided as evidence is a couple of tweets that lack any sort of context or meaning outside of trying to prove a point that I think a lot of people presuppose, which is that "the media" is racist.
What can be asserted essentially without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. I don't need to prove the NYT is not racist, I just need to contend with the assertions you are making, and they are definitely too broad to be based on what you've presented.
I agree that there are definitely some segments of the NYT's operations that could be characterized as racist, but as you seem to be aware, that criticism extends to large swaths of the media institutions in the United States. The question really is a matter of degree, because the NYT makes far more of an effort to correct these biases than much of the media. Your argument essentially is that the NYT is no better than the rest of the media in this respect, and I'd certainly like to see you make a comparison between the NYT and various other media outlets on their coverage of these topics and see who comes out looking the worst.
Fair points, let me request this before I go about all that work.
Can you show me an example of the NYT giving a comparably positive/empathetic headline to the white killers I've provided examples for something comparable where the suspect is black?
Where a black person killed several innocent people and the NYT wrote a tweet or a headlined a piece or anything comparable.
You can be right that my examples haven't proven my claim conclusively (or to your satisfaction), but you haven't any examples that your supposition is true. I think we need a few of those before I make a 20 point list and compare it to your 20 point list.
So I'll wait on the examples of black killers/white victims getting comparable treatments as the inverse or presume there are none (as you are beyond the ones I've already provided).
Correcting the bias is not black killers getting sympathetic coverage or white victims getting negative coverage, it is in accurately reporting the events as they occurred. That you present me with the burden of proof is more than sufficient to prove to me that you have no real interest in the specifics of this discussion and would rather just drag the NYT's name through the mud, which you have been successful in doing. Excellent work, objective achieved, and everyone is worse off for it.
I feel like the focus on the NYT is obscuring the point that the term terrorist or thug is quickly applied to brown criminals, but white criminals get to be known as lone wolfs that were once nice boys. This is across the board in media, with varying levels depending on the outlet. Every time there was an unarmed shooting of a black man you could almost feel the race to find his criminal record and prove that officer had reason to be scared.
As to the headline in question at the NYT, I do question why the results of the tox report were the focus of the headline. And furthermore, why the results of the tox report needed an entire story all to itself. If he had been high on PCP, that would be different.
On March 22 2018 22:32 Plansix wrote: I feel like the focus on the NYT is obscuring the point that the term terrorist or thug is quickly applied to brown criminals, but white criminals get to be known as lone wolfs that were once nice boys. This is across the board in media, with varying levels depending on the outlet. Every time there was an unarmed shooting of a black man you could almost feel the race to find his criminal record and prove that officer had reason to be scared.
As to the headline in question at the NYT, I do question why the results of the tox report were the focus of the headline. And furthermore, why the results of the tox report needed an entire story all to itself. If he had been high on PCP, that would be different.
This is my point that yamato seems to be missing. I felt this was more established here than it apparently is, but the point of highlighting the NYT's was that they are often held up as 'above the fray' or whatever and they aren't. They get into the mud too.
EDIT: I'd add that the extremely problematic nature of the NYT tweet is displayed even in P6's post where he errantly repeats the mistaken impression from Farv about the article having anything to do with tox results.
On March 22 2018 21:30 yamato77 wrote: I think it's highly disingenuous to look at two twitter headlines about two different events in two different times and make sweeping generalizations about the nature of the NYT's coverage.
If that's what I was doing I would agree. That was just me providing some slight context, if you guys really want a detailed and elongated exposition as to the substance of these claims I would be willing to provide it in reasonable time.
But I would expect an equally detailed and substantial response or no one to refute the claim. But a detailed analysis showing multiple instances of a long period of time can't then be dismissed with unsubstantial "but I don't think it's that way or fair to do that" type responses.
I'm willing to go there if you guys really want to, but I suspect you don't because really, we're only at a matter of degree, neither of you seem to actually disagree with the substance of the claim as it stands.
If you were able to show that the NYT uses racist biases in order to advertise its articles on Twitter over a long period of time on a wide ranging and comparable set of topics, then yes, I would be interested in it. However, as it stands, all you've provided as evidence is a couple of tweets that lack any sort of context or meaning outside of trying to prove a point that I think a lot of people presuppose, which is that "the media" is racist.
What can be asserted essentially without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. I don't need to prove the NYT is not racist, I just need to contend with the assertions you are making, and they are definitely too broad to be based on what you've presented.
I agree that there are definitely some segments of the NYT's operations that could be characterized as racist, but as you seem to be aware, that criticism extends to large swaths of the media institutions in the United States. The question really is a matter of degree, because the NYT makes far more of an effort to correct these biases than much of the media. Your argument essentially is that the NYT is no better than the rest of the media in this respect, and I'd certainly like to see you make a comparison between the NYT and various other media outlets on their coverage of these topics and see who comes out looking the worst.
Fair points, let me request this before I go about all that work.
Can you show me an example of the NYT giving a comparably positive/empathetic headline to the white killers I've provided examples for something comparable where the suspect is black?
Where a black person killed several innocent people and the NYT wrote a tweet or a headlined a piece or anything comparable.
You can be right that my examples haven't proven my claim conclusively (or to your satisfaction), but you haven't any examples that your supposition is true. I think we need a few of those before I make a 20 point list and compare it to your 20 point list.
So I'll wait on the examples of black killers/white victims getting comparable treatments as the inverse or presume there are none (as you are beyond the ones I've already provided).
Correcting the bias is not black killers getting sympathetic coverage or white victims getting negative coverage, it is in accurately reporting the events as they occurred. That you present me with the burden of proof is more than sufficient to prove to me that you have no real interest in the specifics of this discussion and would rather just drag the NYT's name through the mud, which you have been successful in doing. Excellent work, objective achieved, and everyone is worse off for it.
I'm not presenting you with 'the' burden of proof (a burden sure), I'm just asking you to substantiate your claim that this isn't uniquely done to black victims/white suspects. I can't possibly be expected to go through every example showing I'm right without you at least showing some evidence I may be wrong on that point. Your suspicion isn't enough to warrant an exhaustive exposition without something substantive in refutation.
It should be exponentially easier for you to find evidence of this not being a thing unique to the black victim/white suspect than it would be for me to show you however many examples, that you dispute in unforeseen ways, of what many others seem to able to readily recognize (despite a mostly fair inclination to disagree whenever possible lol).
EPT
