Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
On nobody's orders. The suppression is voluntary. This is the way the thinking goes:
- Right-wing hate groups are bad.
- Right-wing hate groups feed off stories of immigrants and foreigners doing bad things to natives.
- Publishing stories about immigrants and foreigners doing bad things to locals will fuel right-wing hate groups. Which is bad.
- So we shouldn't publish those sorts of stories.
I've noticed some prominent media outlets have not enabled comments for this story. Another soft suppression of expression. The sentiment is well-meaning, but terribly misguided and dangerous to public dialogue. The more the media tries to be gate-keepers for this sort of debate, the more they'll simply drive the dialogue underground, while diminishing their own credibility and relevance.
And honestly, does anyone think we wouldn't see far, far more media attention to a mass crime and harassment outbreak like this at a U.S. college town involving hundreds of drunk and rowdy frat boys? The columns about rape culture would be all over the front page of every news outlet and forum on the internet. |
It's a little more directed than this. Bipartisanship has taken over huge swaths of our society, including the media. Letting in migrants became associated with the left. Therefore, the left will try to downplay or hide this. As you've said had it been a story they could have linked to white privilege (frat boys) or gun control, this would have been all over every left wing news source.
The right wing news sources are just as bad. It's a huge global problem that unbiased news reporting is so difficult to come by. News sources (and people in general) will use a total lack of judgement or even outright lie when reporting the news, as long as it pushes their agenda and/or makes them profit.