On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:24:29 -0500, modom > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:13:08 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:12:28 -0500, modom > wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Sep 2005 15:24:05 -0700, "itsjoannotjoann"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>A lot of stupid, racist crap.
>>
>>I guess you're one of the brilliant analysts who consider _Huckleberry
>>Finn_ racist?
>
>No.

Hard to prove that by your "analysis" of the OP.

>>Any racism in that post is reflected from the media coverage.
>
>No.

I see you chose to ignore the first sentence: "Things I have learned
from watching the news on TV during the last
eight days:"

But then I've run across this same approach before--'it's always about
race and it's all about the downtrodden.'


>The post contained this statement:
>"Only black family members got separated in the hurricane rescue
>efforts."
>
>That is racially divisive and a lie. As I already said in another
>post, hiding behind an ill conceived attempt at a media critique is a
>****ant alibi. That the post addressed race at all reflects a bias
>about what is normal in America. The norm in NOLA ain't white.

Now who's making remarks that easily could be called racist? Had the
OP said "The norm in NOLA ain't white," you'd be citing that as
racism.

>Furthermore I personally saw pictures of white kids on TV during the
>weekend attempt to reunite families and locate missing kids.
>
>And this one:
>"Ignore warnings to evacuate and the white folks will come get you and
>give you money for being stupid."
>
>That is not accurate and racist. CNN reported that 38% of those who
>stayed behind couldn't leave because they were either disabled or
>caring for a disabled person who couldn't leave. Poverty and simply
>not having a car accounted for large percentages of others who did not
>flee the storm.
>
>And this one:
>"The hurricane only hit black families' property."
>
>That is not accurate and racist. Anybody atending to the coverage of
>the disaster saw plenty of stories about property damage among white
>communities, many of them heart-wrenching.

The OP addresses the overall thrust of the media. Certainly there are
exceptions--upon which you're pleased to jump. But the OP's
piece--and it's admittedly over the top, as much humor deliberately
is--makes a valid point about the general coverage.

Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
re-election), but they ARE exceptions.

>>(try thinking next time, instead of hitting yourself in the jaw when
>>your knee jerks)
>
>Thanks for the advice. You might try reading it out loud to yourself.

Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
these judgments. You clearly don't, now.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.