Angels & Terrorists
I promise you donāt know where this is going pic.twitter.com/I1XRWIM6Jr
— kš (@skepticalspice) December 4, 2021
Be sure to watch to the end.
Features
Hot Posts
Thank You!
Thanks to your generosity, we were able to upgrade our service plan. Hopefully this will help us address some of our performance issues.
Recent Comments
on Are Republicans Waking Up?I'm just relieved that it's not DeSantis. Aren't you?
on Are Republicans Waking Up?Again, I appreciate the writing, but continue to be completely baffled by posts suggesting there is…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024Agreed, I just fine it funny to see such a change on both sides when nothing has changed with the ha…
on Are Republicans Waking Up?Is it too soon for I Told You So? Thoughts and prayers.on From Semafor: Kamala Harrisā digital chief on Democrats ālosing hold of cultureāAt least we now know.
Comics
-
Moving Picture of a Handy Man Around the House
December 17, 2024
-
Somebody is Always Taking the Joy out of Life
December 16, 2024
-
December 15, 2024
-
December 14, 2024
More Comments
on Between Nagorno-Karabakh and a Hard Placeon Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024
As someone in the replies put it: the human body is not meant to handle the speed with which she flipped that thing around.Report
The Crumbleys were my favorite characters in Harry Potter.Report
I just did a quick Google search for Crumbley, followed by Ethan Crumbley. The former mostly shows the mug shot of Ethan, often with those of his parents. The latter mostly shows the mug shot. The US Sun is notable exception.
I cannot speak for social media, but the news outlets don’t seem to use the more flattering picture.Report
I followed this all pretty closely on social media — out of perverse curiosity I suppose. Anyway, we knew who the shooter was long before his mugshot was available. At that time, the only confirmed images that showed the shooter’s face were those when he was a kid, so the media went with those. There were a few more recent images from social media, but those were pretty dubious, and in fact turned out to be completely bogus, not Ethan Crumbley at all.
After the mugshot came out, the media gradually began to switch to that on new articles. However, links to the existing articles were still circulating around, so people would click on those, not check the publication time, and get salty because they were showing the “nice” photo. In other words, it was all a false controversy.
Regarding the vid, that woman is a ranting loon. The argument that the media shows black people as “thugs” and white people as “angels” — all to make white people look bad — that’s literally stupid. Is anyone that stupid? Is she that stupid, or does she just think her audience is? (Probably both, tbh.)Report
I think that is the point of the OP, the fact that she was building up the idea that the media chooses the image to use based upon how they want to portray a victim or perpetrator, and she was heading to that point full steam, and then flipped it so hard your brain wants to break.Report
For Rittenhouse, there are a lot of pictures from the trial and a lot of video stills of him with the gun.
I wonder if it might be easier to get clearance for mug shots (no copyright?) vs. social media posts, where they might need permission to use the picture?
And going a little further, maybe savvy defense teams make sure there are more flattering pictures of their clients for news outlets to use.Report
These high profile cases don’t make for good examples of how the system works.
The average Joe doesn’t have a savvy defense attorney, and in almost all cases the only information media have to work with is what’s spoon fed to them by the cops and prosecutors.Report
Since the case in the video is high profile, I thought it made the most sense to compare it to other high profile cases. Low profile cases aren’t going to have as much coverage, so less opportunity for any media manipulation to be an issue.
Anyway, after reading other comments, I realize I missed the twist in the last few seconds.Report
Locally, a 15 year old student murdered an 18 year old student at a high school about four weeks ago and there is no picture of the “suspect.” There is a picture of the victim, who does not appear to have been the intended target, but intervened to stop the girl from stabbing another student. The state’s attorney has indicated his intent to charge her as an adult, so I assume that would happen before we see any pictures, though I guess media standards differ: (1) knife, not gun; (2) girl “suspect”, not boy; (3) “suspect” probably black (school is majority minority); and (4) victim was black, not white.Report
There’s a lot of layers and tough to justify inconsistencies in how these things are covered. I think the real driver is how big of an outlier the incident is. With multiple homicide incidents we’re already talking about the outliers of the outliers.Report
I agree with that. Availability of video is important too, though in this case, the girl chased someone through the school at the end of the day and I gather photos were taken by other students. Her mom might have been the instigator.
But really, I don’t want her name or face made public or that of any minor.Report
“The media is trying to maliciously subvert our entirely correct biases about angelic-looking white boys by presenting a horrible person as an angelic-looking white boy.” was _not_ on any of my bingo cards, but probably should be.
I especially like how she’s worried that people might think white men, _no matter how nice they look_, are domestic terrorists. Because…the correct way to judge whether someone is a domestic terrorist is by how nice they look?Report
Physiognomy is real.Report
Ung, the idiocy in this one is so strong it burns.Report
Is she serious, or trolling? I saw it when it was originally posted, but now the tweet is private and I can’t remember the source.Report
In twitter I am not convinced there’s even a line between the two terms.Report
Oh, it’s public again. Weird. I’ve never heard of Kim Iversen, but apparently she’s a right-populist, so probably serious.Report