Media Profiling?

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:28 pm

Okay, not too sure if that terminology would be correct, "profiling", but let me define it.

Recently with the Obama campaign and election, I felt that the media profiled specifically on African-Americans and a few other people of non-Caucasian ethnicity. I'm not trying to turn this into anything about the election or reasons into Obama's victory. This has nothing to do with him directly, but it does bother me about how the media has reacted during all this.

When watching my local TV stations and main stream media, I have noticed that a majority of the people it put the camera on during the inauguration were African-American. Most of the people they interviewed were as well. I just wonder about the why's. If this nation needs unity so bad, and is trying to end certain racism issues, why then would they possibly cause more separation by targeting one group of people? Hopefully this defines what I am trying to get across by "profiling".

I am a white guy, but what bothered me about this most was when I walked into school after his election and had Obama campaign posters shoved in my face by African American students that were hooting subtle racist remarks at other white students as well. I understand that this is a major moment in history, but attempting to instigate trouble like this is unacceptable. Because an African-American man has become president does not empower these hot headed students any higher up than people of other ethnicity. Now I am by no means racist or begrudged by this at all, but I hate it when things like this happen because if I say something about it I get called racist. Why?

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but are there not other people that have opinions and are just as happy about Obama's election as the African-American community? Why were these people not given equal media time? And again, I am only judging this based off of my local TV station and NBC.

This is NOT a debate about the election or Obama's presidency, but a debate about the media and how they do things. Obviously, I am on the side that thinks the media uses a little too much "profiling".

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:32 pm

The media is not on the side of truth. Live long enough and it becomes very clear. Manipulation and political agenda is power... and the media is King.

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:37 pm

most "non-racists" believe it's impossible for black people to be racist. why? i don't know. i don't think media profiling really has anything to do with this. the biggest deal about obama's election is that he's black. why shouldn't they show more black people? the reason you can't say anything about it without "being a racist" is because you're white. nothings going to change that in your lifetime.

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:55 pm

The media, even TV stations advertising themselves as non-biased, are so biased they'll make you're eyes burn. A news station up in WI while I was growing up there, stated that they were the least-biased news station in the state. What a load of crap, lol. Of course the media is going to "profile." They want minorities to see that the news agencies are finally interested in them, that Obama has made a "Change." Another load of crap.

What the media does, is almost never show you the truth. Until someone hijacks their transmission freqs, LOL. Twisted Evil

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:44 pm

I really don't there is a difference between the "media" as in News and any other program that is on "The Hills", Lost, Heroes, etc. They are all driven by ratings which is tied into their ability to charge companie for the commercials that we are subjected to. If "The Media" thinks for a second that they will get more people to look at there station becuase of the color of the person on the screen then guess what...they are going to put that race/sex on the screen. The only color they care about is the color GREEN .

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:13 pm

biggmike_ca wrote:

The only color they care about is the color GREEN .

Gawd Dang Martians!

... Sorry Very Happy

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:26 pm

I think that's more like affirmative action than profiling.

Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 5:31 am

I remember the night of the election, the stations around here showed Obama's speech in Chicago, there were all races represented. They did show a lot of African-Americans, true, but it's a major milestone, not only in "their peoples'" history, but in the history of all mankind. Long story short, the Democratic party said "let's elect an African-American president, it's time" and they picked the best man for the job. The Republicans, ever conservative, felt it wasn't time yet, the American people made their wishes clear, and this is where we are. It's been a long road for the African-American people, from slavery to emancipation and the long hard road to equal rights. Now that they've reached the top, and it's not all that much of a big deal, we as a people can only move forward. And as we close the book on African-American rights, civil rights activists face yet another front, gay rights. Hopefully after that's all over and done with, the Church doesn't single out another demographic to hate. Maybe after all these years they can turn to the love that they preach. Who knows.

On the other hand, the same night, they showed McCain's concession speech in Arizona - there was not one dark face in the crowd. I don't just mean the people questioned by the camera, I mean everyone that was showed as the cameras canvassed the crowd. Not one Hispanic, Asian, or African-American face could I see supporting John McCain. I did however see a skinhead crying and couldn't help but laugh.

But no, racial issues aside, the media is far from unbiased, and I'm not just talking about FOX News. We all know about them, they're easy to pick on. This is Memorial Day weekend, people are going to large gatherings, schools are off Monday, people are out and about, traveling and whatnot. So our local news station runs three, four stories on child molesters. Including one about a "child rapist", a woman who is now married to and has two kids by her "victim". This particular station is known for misusing terms and all that, and they're with NBC, not FOX. But I guess what they're trying to do is trying to get people to be more aware of what their kids are doing over the holidays. Because child molesters always want to hurt kids, but there isn't a rise in their activity, it's just more is being reported because that's what this particular station wants people to be thinking about.

You are right, topic creator, profiling is the wrong word. Profiling is singling people out based on demographic statistics, the best example of which is specifically targeting Arab-Americans for random searches at stadiums, airports, etc. What you're talking about is selective reporting, selective journalism. FOX News is a big time player of this game, but they all do it. I trust the BBC and CNN to do it less than others, but quite frankly, they all do it, to some extent. That's why I use Google News. It pulls news from all over the place, pretty indiscriminately, I believe. If I see a sensational headline, sometimes I'll read on, but I'll also read the articles from other places that are covering the same story.

And to the person who mentioned affirmative action, that is incorrect, as AA is a form of racism in which you basically take the population of a minority as a percentage and enforce that every race with dark skin must be represented per capita at a job or school. And it's racist because it doesn't protect Irish, German, Italian, etc. Some would say that those races don't need protection, but those three Caucasian races have all been discriminated against in America, you just don't hear about it as much nowadays. Selective journalism and all that. And it's not quite as recent for the Irish. (For the Irish it was after America was colonized, Irish weren't as welcome as English. Germans and Italians faced prejudice along with Japanese after World War II for being from a country that was part of the Axis. Oh yes. And none of them benefited from affirmative action. The non-racist alternative would be jobs and education available based entirely on ability and not at all on ethnicity. Reverse racism has done more for the problem than the solution.

Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 8:26 am

When you factor in just how powerful the media is in shaping opinions, such behaviour is downright scary. And its not just an American thing either, its global.

The problem is that once the media finishes announcing the news they then bring in 'experts' to give their opinions on it. Now while the media itself is not biased (legally speaking) the so called experts can be as biased as they bloody well like.

The problem is deepened because our education system does not equip the average person with ability to distinguish between the news and opinion. They don't learn to absorb only the news and then form an opinion of their own without the need of external ideas. Most people just can't. They simply parrot ideas they heard somewhere or from somewhere. They haven't learnt to question the opinion or the correctness of it.

I am not looking down on or mocking the average guy here. I am one of them most of the time. We all are. But....

But....A lot of the people here in my opinion would be exceptions to that rule. Like the OP, who saw something and questioned it. Most people would gloss over it and never think to actually think about it.

I would much prefer the media to simply report the news and leave it at that. Ha some dream.

Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 8:48 am

Ah, that puppet show? I got bored of [MSM and "poly"ticks (all the parrots need crackers!] over a decade ago.

beardo came about as close to it in the fewest words. I'd go further to say that the MSM does about as fair a job as they can in most cases, when massively broadcasting one must make huge presumptions regarding reception amongst both the target audience and passive observers.

I have mixed feelings about Obama's footage and black response to it. On one hand I'm glad and ultimately neutral at the new placebo - I mean president - and his reception amongst the American monochrome. On the other hand, I can't help but remember the significance of such a figure of acceptance amongst oppressed peoples, not just blacks, but everyone who felt mounting anger at the provisions made by the former administration, within ancient prophecy - not that I'm a huge advocate of prophecy, just certain astrologically based prophecies tend to be correct - usually in different context than most expect, but in general, yes.

But ultimately, whatever pretext Obabama was elected under, he's not too far removed from inner power circles, and thus anything he might appear to do up front could be a smokescreen for something else. Which ties in with deception - I mean reception.

Don't get me wrong, I respect any celebrations held especially by blacks about the symbol of one of their own becoming placebo. But there are some heavy issues he must address - and in many cases, is. He has a very fine line to walk, perhaps more fine than most anyone in history... and most people who watch MSM will never even realize just how fine it is, and how if he slightly deviates in any way the wrath of one party or another will come down.

Thus, the media has to be careful. Thus people observing the media must be careful.

Human minds work not unlike quantum mechanics; with all the neurons firing, we are literally reality producing machines. We see, hear, feel... what we want. Give such a large symbol as Obama... and there is interesting potential, for those willing to see them all.

Logic is based upon inductions and deductions, amiright? And the root of those is mathematics, right? So until people settle upon paradigms, reality is nothing but a flux of probability. Most people simply tend to settle for the obvious, is what I'm trying to say. The MSM tries to make sure people stay that way.

Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:01 am

The media relies on dramatization, they want things to flair up.

If there is no news, make news.
If its not a big story, turn it in a big story.

The media have a very bad reputation and most times it's for good reason.
I never look to the media for truth or a realistic report on events.

To me thats common sense, but I agree its disheartening to see the damage they do at times.

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:35 am

White guilt is why. I’m not racist but feel no guilt. I’m proud to be a white Christian man.

Many, media included, will consider my statement racist.