We seem to have a disconnect here. I thought we were talking about the shootings that hit the news this weekend, which seem to have had nothing to do with the looters or demonstrators.ant wrote:Harry wrote:It's called the National Guard.Maybe, but it's hard to pin down what exactly should have been done to prevent the violence surge
When the Guard was called and arrived in Los Angeles, the looting came to nearly a complete stop.
In situations like social anarchy it does little to open a forum to debate what exactly needs to be done when you have specific resources that are available and have been known from experience to quell civil unrest. Indecisiveness is a hallmark of Democratic thinking
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/us/homic ... index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/child ... index.html
We don't usually call the National Guard in for crime waves, in large part because they are effective more against massed violence than against the shootings that crop up when there are too many guns around and too much trauma around. Maybe this looks like the same social anarchy to you, but to me it looks very similar to waves of shootings that occurred in the years before the virus.
When is self-righteous moral indignation not justified to those who agree with the condemnation?ant wrote:As I said, I consider it justified. But it does seem to be in the air these days. It is much, MUCH more prevalent on the left though.You just showed a video of the right being full of self-righteous moral indignation. It seems to be in the air these days.
Follow mainstream media today if you don't normally do. You will see it daily
I am somewhat concerned with equating journalism with activism, but I have been stunned by the extent to which CNN and MSNBC fill their time with material that could be considered political activism. PBS aims for factuality, but again, with their choice of what to cover, they clearly promote criticism of social ills and those who want to underline them. More prevalent on the left? Maybe. Every time I watch Fox the moral posturing seems to be heavily laced into the commentary, but I don't watch it that often. By the way, Fox is not the only one on the right - the Wall Street Journal is, and the mainstream press considers the L.A. Times to be conservative (and they certainly entertain strident, morally indignant conservative voices regularly), plus there is the Washington Times and the New York Post and the New York Daily News, and, in its timid way, USA Today.I'm glad you agree with the statement journalism of today is actually political activism:
CNN MSNBC PBS CBS ABC NYT NewYorker LAT vs Fox
But leave that aside. I have worked on the inside of the press, many decades ago, and it is clear to me that the professional press leans to the left. This is partly just the shadow side of the way violent institutions have traditionally hushed up their abuses, and truth-telling is an exciting way to be virtuous. In many parts of the world being a journalist is life-threatening, and journalists are very conscious of the dynamic in which power wants impunity and the press threatens it. To me that confrontation with power is a very good thing, creating accountability where there might not be otherwise.
But I accept the criticism that this dynamic also leads the press to take sides with those who criticize power, sometimes irresponsibly. Another part of the story is that taking a morally superior position is easier if you aren't actually responsible for the outcome, and the press can slip by with that. As true on the right as on the left, of course.