View Full Version : What's not in the news
Political correctness is really huge in Australia. It limits freedom of speech more than our government ever has.
Yesterday the TV news had a brief story about an Asian student studying in Western Australia. This kid was beaten by two aborigines. They beat him by the side of a road, then tossed him down a hill. They beat him again at the bottom. Then they left him in a creek. They used a metal bar of some kind, punched and kicked him, and also bit him all over. His face is so swollen that doctors can't even guess if he'll need reconstructive surgery or not.
I've looked all over the local news websites, and haven't found the story.
A friend of my father was a police officer in the Northern Territory. Once he was called in to a small aboriginal community to have a look at some young men who were drinking and being rowdy, causing problems. They beat him, and when he was down they all started jumping on him, and smashed his pelvis. He retired of course. This never made the news.
Is the risk of being labelled racist any excuse for not reporting the news? Do you think political correctness (ie. fear of being seen as politically incorrect) prevents news services from running stories about minority groups?
11-03-02, 05:16 PM
There is frequent news in the US about minorities, the problem is that it doesn't get pushed as a story unless something happens from the incident. If something like that happened here, it would get a little coverage in the local area but it wouldn't be made a big story in the nightly news or newspapers. That's the equivelant of some drunked rednecks beating up a gay person in Arkansas (not to be offensive to people from Arkansas or gay people).....I need that disclaimer or else people will jump down my neck.
Anyway, the story is perfect news for the media but it doesn't involve enough people or enough groups of people, sure it deals with an Asian (minority) but to be politically correct, if the news agency were to report something that "insignificant" about an Asian person, other minority organizations would get on their case for not reporting more about the other minorities. It's a different political correctness.
Political correctness is politically incorrect because it is bias to the idea of full equality...I'm sure you heard something along those lines before. All it does is cover real problems and replaces them with a false idea of society. Show me a society where women can run as fast as men, there is an equal amount of every race, men can feel the pain of childbirth, there is one language....and I'll tell you your living in a perfect world.
Just an opinion from a white male living in America.
11-03-02, 05:38 PM
I am on really dodgy ground here I know, but I think there may be a case for not reporting some incidents involving racial minorities, especially when they are subject to assault. It could be that the reports might spark a wave of attacks against members of that ethnic group.
Here in the UK there were quite a few attacks on Asians following September 11th, basically thugs will jump at any excuse.
Having said that I think the story you quote should not be suppressed.
11-06-02, 07:19 PM
For completely unbiased reports from the Mid East, I always turn to the bbc.
US publications (with the exception of independent ones) almost always side with one side or the other.
11-06-02, 10:38 PM
The majority of assaults never make it as news. It is questionable as to why many murders are classed as news. Often, these things need not concern the entire community.
You'd think the news would broadcast news. But there are other powers and agendas, no doubt.
11-12-02, 10:46 PM
of course not. there are several filters a piece on information has to go through before it makes any sort of news.
if it offends adveritsers,
or if the source is deemed "uncredible"
or if its pro-middle east/muslim.
all these things will almost automatically get rid of a story. Also, sometimes they show you less important stories to make you forget about more important things. IE when the sniper thing here in the states happened, we heard next to nothing about the "war on terrorism". although the sniper was terrible, i think impending war is more important.
"Its not our media, its their FUCKING media! raise your voice, stand together, raise your fists, TELL THE TRUTH!!!"- Justin Sane
11-14-02, 09:11 PM
If you're interested in reading what's between the lines, and what is really happening with the world, I'd recommend looking into some of Chomsky's books, most notably The Propaganda Model (I believe it's called that) written also with someone by the name of Herman.
I only read a chapter and it was awhile ago, but I got the picture
Chomsky is one boring guy. But his ideas and the controversy behind them are extremely important and should be at least considered by everyone, that is, we only see or hear about what the media wants us to. I watched this video on him about a week ago, it ran a list of about fifty corporations that owned something like 90% of all american media, including tv stations, newspapers, magazines, websites, whatever. Only a handful of people delegate what the millions around the world know about what is happening there, and what's more is that only a short minority have the slightest clue as to what is going on. I would go so far as to say that no one knows everything, that no matter your source, you will always miss something, because for whatever reason it discredits the source itself.
I'd reccomend listening to Democracy Now, it's a radio show, you may have to do some scrounging to find it, but that's how I heard about the massive anti-war demonstrations around the world, totalling in several million people, that were completely neglected by the media. The point is that you do have to scrounge to get a clear picture, it's tougher to do that than it is to just sit down and watch the news when you come home, and unfortunately that's what almost everyone does.