Tweet
OK guys, this one has to be incredible. I had to run a thread for it. It has to do with Sava's post on the Miami riots.
Basically, Harry Tuttle claimed, backed by a CNN article, that the police in Miami was right in molesting the protesters, during a FTAA summit.
My argument against this was:
1. The CNN article quoted a US official who said they were commited to progressing nicely on the topic of agricultural subsidies. I found this dubious, since in a WTO summit this fall, Third World countries left discussions earlier as a protest against Europe and America's unwillingness to loosen their position. I even remember hearing Western officials, before the summit, saying that they would be making concessions on this topic. So obviously, it turned out to be a lie, if the Third World diplomats were pissed to the point of leaving prematurely. Some analysts even claimed that this was a major crisis in the history of the WTO. So if what the US official was saying is true, there must have been some drastic change in the US policy over the last few months.
"All right", said I, "let's see what Latin America officials had to say about this". Seems I had been too naive, because the CNN piece didn't bother asking two or three to verify the statement of the PR guy. What kind of crap journalism is this??? How could have journalism ever been about quoting someone without asking his counterparts' point of view? We call this "Press Release", not journalism.
This was my first point: either the article is bad journalism, or either the bias was done on purpose. But Harry Tuttle failed to see such an obvious point and accused me of changing the discussion's topic.
Now, let's see a quote from said article:
Forgoing that the free-trade zone would not include Cuba, we have here a nice case of a junk, literary enhancement of what could have been simply dubbed as "Americas". Poetry is not for anyone, it seems.
Then, the article went on, describing the demonstrators' will to vandalize and attack, depicting in detail their arsenal: slings, bottles full of urine, and pepper spray.
It ends up quoting the chief of police, who obviously wants to look like his men had been moderate. It also fails to provide any demonstrator's point of view. I suppose that is journalism, relaying official discourses?
BTW, everyone who has participated in a demo knows that some journalists get a pass to follow the police, while others just melt in the crowd. Oddly enough, the latter usually have their cameras seized and often get arrested along with demonstrators, while it is not the case of the first group. Might it be that journalists who do not relay solely the police point of view are not appreciated by the authorities? As if wearing flashy orange and having a camera is not clear enough to show you're not throwing rocks.
What I know, however, is that the said officer has not been so much mild-intented, judging from other quotes forgotten by CNN.
I gave a link to a definitely left-wing source, that has at least the benefit of offering another point of view, and some nice quotes from the police itself:
The problem is, you have to watch a 30 seconds pro-ecologic advertisement or subscribe to the site in order to see it. Seems like watching an ad on Fox or on CNN is not a problem for anyone, but Harry Tuttle decided that the communist ad was a proof of bias and thus rendered useless an article he wouldn't even read.
So, communist ads are a proof of bias, but free-market banners are not.
OK, from now on I'll be quicker. So as to demonstrate that the police had no qualms about lying, I told him about my personal experience, in which a crowd I was part of was encircled and arrested. Someone near me had been carrying a plastic bottle for water. Notwithstanding that he didn't have any fluid, the police handcuffed the guy, seized the bottle and claimed its goal was to make a Molotov cocktail.
I don't expect Harry Tuttle to be a brilliant mind, but still this quote regarding this course of event is simply idiotic to the point of being embarassing:
Just to make sure everyone gets it, here is a cite from Wikipedia explaining basic rules underlying Molotov cocktail functions:
Harry, has it ever come to your mind that plastic bottles don't shatter?
And guess the story that was ran in the newspaper on the following day? "A demonstrator had even brought a Molotov cocktail!" The article also talked about armed demonstrators. But a quick glance at what was seized by the police showed that there were about one or two daggers (which you might be carrying for many reasons anyway), and tons of little, pocket sized SWISS KNIVES.
Now, we call this an obvious case of journalism lie and evidence falsification by the police.
Which goes back to the CNN article: If you don't ask the demonstrators' point of view, chances are that grossly barbaric lies such as these can make it to an article. And no, there is no instance of CNN double checking any of the police claims. They quote the police and make it pass as if it was the truth.
Which leads me to this final thought: from the time I witnessed these sad events, I lost great faith in our democracy system and started to understand the angry protesters violent motives: they are destroying windows out of despair and powerlesness, not because they are brainwashed lefties (ok, maybe a bit of both but nothing that can justify such oppression).
And to end things in beauty, a quote from Harry Tuttle that will stand the test of time as a symbol of brilliant reasoning and clever humanist avant-garde:
Thanks, Harry. This has become my sig!
(talk about a cathartic quote from storytelling expert, "Aritotle"!)
Basically, Harry Tuttle claimed, backed by a CNN article, that the police in Miami was right in molesting the protesters, during a FTAA summit.
My argument against this was:
1. The CNN article quoted a US official who said they were commited to progressing nicely on the topic of agricultural subsidies. I found this dubious, since in a WTO summit this fall, Third World countries left discussions earlier as a protest against Europe and America's unwillingness to loosen their position. I even remember hearing Western officials, before the summit, saying that they would be making concessions on this topic. So obviously, it turned out to be a lie, if the Third World diplomats were pissed to the point of leaving prematurely. Some analysts even claimed that this was a major crisis in the history of the WTO. So if what the US official was saying is true, there must have been some drastic change in the US policy over the last few months.
"All right", said I, "let's see what Latin America officials had to say about this". Seems I had been too naive, because the CNN piece didn't bother asking two or three to verify the statement of the PR guy. What kind of crap journalism is this??? How could have journalism ever been about quoting someone without asking his counterparts' point of view? We call this "Press Release", not journalism.
This was my first point: either the article is bad journalism, or either the bias was done on purpose. But Harry Tuttle failed to see such an obvious point and accused me of changing the discussion's topic.
Now, let's see a quote from said article:
Backed by armored personnel carriers, officers in riot gear pushed demonstrators about 300 yards away from the Bayfront Park Amphitheater.
Inside, ministers from 34 countries were trying to hammer out a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a free-trade zone that would stretch across the Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego.
Inside, ministers from 34 countries were trying to hammer out a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a free-trade zone that would stretch across the Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego.
Then, the article went on, describing the demonstrators' will to vandalize and attack, depicting in detail their arsenal: slings, bottles full of urine, and pepper spray.
It ends up quoting the chief of police, who obviously wants to look like his men had been moderate. It also fails to provide any demonstrator's point of view. I suppose that is journalism, relaying official discourses?
BTW, everyone who has participated in a demo knows that some journalists get a pass to follow the police, while others just melt in the crowd. Oddly enough, the latter usually have their cameras seized and often get arrested along with demonstrators, while it is not the case of the first group. Might it be that journalists who do not relay solely the police point of view are not appreciated by the authorities? As if wearing flashy orange and having a camera is not clear enough to show you're not throwing rocks.
What I know, however, is that the said officer has not been so much mild-intented, judging from other quotes forgotten by CNN.
I gave a link to a definitely left-wing source, that has at least the benefit of offering another point of view, and some nice quotes from the police itself:
The problem is, you have to watch a 30 seconds pro-ecologic advertisement or subscribe to the site in order to see it. Seems like watching an ad on Fox or on CNN is not a problem for anyone, but Harry Tuttle decided that the communist ad was a proof of bias and thus rendered useless an article he wouldn't even read.
So, communist ads are a proof of bias, but free-market banners are not.
OK, from now on I'll be quicker. So as to demonstrate that the police had no qualms about lying, I told him about my personal experience, in which a crowd I was part of was encircled and arrested. Someone near me had been carrying a plastic bottle for water. Notwithstanding that he didn't have any fluid, the police handcuffed the guy, seized the bottle and claimed its goal was to make a Molotov cocktail.
I don't expect Harry Tuttle to be a brilliant mind, but still this quote regarding this course of event is simply idiotic to the point of being embarassing:
And yeah, containers that hold liquid can hold gasoline.
The weapon is used by lighting the rag and throwing the bottle at the target. The bottle shatters on impact, spilling the burning liquid over the target
And guess the story that was ran in the newspaper on the following day? "A demonstrator had even brought a Molotov cocktail!" The article also talked about armed demonstrators. But a quick glance at what was seized by the police showed that there were about one or two daggers (which you might be carrying for many reasons anyway), and tons of little, pocket sized SWISS KNIVES.
Now, we call this an obvious case of journalism lie and evidence falsification by the police.
Which goes back to the CNN article: If you don't ask the demonstrators' point of view, chances are that grossly barbaric lies such as these can make it to an article. And no, there is no instance of CNN double checking any of the police claims. They quote the police and make it pass as if it was the truth.
Which leads me to this final thought: from the time I witnessed these sad events, I lost great faith in our democracy system and started to understand the angry protesters violent motives: they are destroying windows out of despair and powerlesness, not because they are brainwashed lefties (ok, maybe a bit of both but nothing that can justify such oppression).
And to end things in beauty, a quote from Harry Tuttle that will stand the test of time as a symbol of brilliant reasoning and clever humanist avant-garde:
Democracy has nothing to do with rights or free speech
(talk about a cathartic quote from storytelling expert, "Aritotle"!)
... 
Comment