HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 30, 2005 I’ve read a number of Mr. Stelly’s articles when the titles caught my eye. One of the first ones, I forget which one, did cause me to wonder, "who this author could be?" so I visited his web site some months ago. I don’t recall being particularly impressed by any accomplishment or his writing style, but did think he seemed like a very forthright and thoughtful man. Those are very good qualities in my opinion and he demonstrates them again in his article today, "The Natalee Holloway Case has Racial Overtones." Unlike Mr. Graham, the target of my rebuttal that Mr. Stelly questions, Mr. Stelly offers seemingly reasoned rationale and documented evidence in his argument, and seems less emotionally attached to the issue. But like Mr. Graham, he’s just not correct. Here are his mistakes: He begins by saying: "The fact there are so many writers debating this issue (racism in the coverage of Natalee Holloway) should be proof positive that the case does have a racial element at its core." No, Mr. Stelly, that fact offers no ‘proof’ about the case at all, it only speaks to the minds of those writers, none of whom are directly connected to the case. Yet, as I’ve said, unlike Mr. Graham, Mr. Stelly does try to defend his silliness - but he uses the same amateurish manipulations that I frequently point out in UK contributors. Listen as he "sets the scene" with manipulation. First, he says Natalee was "consort(ing) with strangers," to make it sound like she was at fault. Then, he implies Media racism with this sentence: "When she comes up missing the media focuses on two black "suspects" (the hotel security guards) who were detained by police." Well, dang Mr. Stelly, who would you expect the media to "focus on" except the suspects arrested? From this crazy accusation, and a similar implication when the Media next focused on the "well to do white youth", Mr. Stelly has the gall to draw a conclusion: "There we have the racial reality…." Are you serious, Mr. Stelly? At most, these incidents could imply some hint of racism on the Aruban police’s part, but the Media? They just covered the story. And aren’t the Aruban police largely Black, Hispanic, Caribbean, or whatever? (Perhaps, a few Dutch thrown in) I doubt they practice discrimination against Blacks. Immediately following these inanities, and citing no other evidence except these inanities, he makes the bold statement: "For these reasons, I agree with Claxton Graham. There is nothing "false" or "exaggerated" about his articles." Weak, weak, weak, Mr. Stelly. Even Mr. Graham’s foolish remarks deserve a better defense than that. There are more mistakes (I’m sorry, this is going to take a bit). He makes this myopic claim: "The fact is, when it boils down to black and white (still the most polarizing issue in America)…." I hate to tell you this, Mr. Stelly, but the black/white issue ranks real low on most white people’s list of most polarizing issues. In fact, I dare say Red Sox/Yankees beats it. And of all the dozens of minorities, including those of race, religion, ancestral homeland, hair color, etc., in America, it seems to me that Blacks are the only ones who claim this "polarization" theory. Granted, at our ages, Mr. Stelly and I can recall when racism was exponentially worse, but it's just not that way any more. The amount of discrimination Blacks face today, if it's any worse than that faced by any demographic (take us old people, for example), is definitely not as bad as Black leadership drones. Here’s another mistake, as he speaks of news editors who do not choose to run stories of missing black women: "But those who make the aforementioned decisions are saying that the lives of missing black women and children are not newsworthy." This is wrong. The editors are making no judgement at all of those subjects’ "newsworthy"-ness, they are only making judgements on their "ratings-worthiness." There is simply no intent by those editors to slight, disrespect, or disregard missing Blacks. Next, Mr. Stelly does give us a chance to point him in the right direction when he simply asks us to tell him why one group of people, all white, were "newsworthy," while a second group, comprised of minorities, did not make headlines. Of course, since I answered that question for Mr. Graham, over and over, I would have thought he already knew. The answer, Mr. Stelly, lies in the perceived target market of each Media source. For example, how would you describe the target market of the major networks’ evening newscasts? Would you think 18 – 24 year old white males? How about 25 – 40 year old females? Would it surprise you if my guess were correct, 45 – 75 year old whites? If I’m close to being right, wouldn’t that perfectly explain why those shows choose white-oriented stories? How about the target markets of the leading daily newspaper in any major metropolitan city, what are they? Do you think a significant percentage of their subscribers (say, 20%) are Blacks? I would guess not, although it pains me to think so. Shouldn’t their stories tend towards the majority of their subscriber base if they intend to stay in business? I want to return to this subject, but first I’ll finish listing Mr. Stelly’s mistakes. Next, he returns to manipulation in his quotes of three news sources. He cites a fairly straightforward comment by some think-tanker that basically states the obvious – missing white women get news coverage, minorities don’t. OK…..I wondered why he felt it necessary to now attach academic credibility to the same statement he’s already made - but I kept reading. Then, he quotes a Fox News staffer and some anonymous MSNBC "reporters" with more innocuous statements. If they have a point, I don’t get it. Again I wonder, what’s with the important looking, but essentially meaningless quotes. Then it becomes obvious. He finally cites a Media executive quote with some meat to it: "blonde missing persons are more newsworthy."? (his punctuation) Finally, the "smoking gun" we’ve been waiting for; his case is proven. But wait, how can we verify this quote? He seems to have conveniently omitted this speaker’s name – after making such a big deal of naming those who made the innocuous statements. It’s called manipulation, folks. Distract the reader with a bunch of important-sounding names to enforce the subliminal idea that he’s providing documented evidence, then slip in the ringer with no documentation. Why don’t you want us to research this quote, Mr. Stelly? Next, he provides us opinion and hopes blustering convinces that it’s fact: "The people making those decision do so with no research data to back it up. It is personal bias—period." That’s a pretty bold charge, Mr. Stelly. I hate to think what those advertisers, who spend billions every year, will think when they learn there are no valid research data backing up the formulas used by the Media to set their pricing. You might just trigger the collapse of a huge industry. Or not. Maybe the advertisers have enough common sense to look around them, to see who's reading the newspapers, who's talking about last night's newscasts. I give them enough credit for understanding who will see their billions in advertising dollars. Mr. Stelly objects to my analogies, claiming them "absurd." While I congratulate Mr. Stelly for accurately describing their absurdity, he seems to miss the entire point of their use. My online dictionary defines ‘analogy’ as, "inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others." My analogies were intentionally absurd, Mr. Stelly. Exactly because that which I hoped to clarify by their use – the inanity of Mr. Graham’s post – was absurd. Does that make sense to you, sir? It’s a neat writing tool, you have my permission to use it. He suggests that if I "examine afrocentric media objectively," my opinions would change. Nice of you to tease me that way, Mr. Stelly, but couldn’t you just have done that for me? I obviously don’t have a good handle on afrocentric media sources, since I thought BET qualified. Funny, I suspect that 95% of BET’s viewers would be dumbfounded to learn it was not an afrocentric broadcaster. While you do provide ONE instance of white news coverage by BET, Elizabeth Smart, that hardly disproves my point. The Media sources you accuse of racism have certainly run more than ONE story about Blacks. To deny that afrocentric Media focuses on black news stories sounds like the pot calling the kettle "absurd" to me. Finally, I do agree with Mr. Stelly’s last sentence: "The race of a missing child or woman should not factor into whether or not it gets media coverage, or to what extent." Which gets me back to the subject I dropped above. Doesn't it seem ironic that Conservative Ron, Hater of All Media, is here defending the Media against charges from two (I assume) Liberals? In truth, I am merely defending the Truth, as most of my exposes do. Mr. Graham and Mr. Stelly are spewing a bunch of BS, so I expose – the particular subject does not matter to me. However, once I get past their BS, Mr. Stelly and Mr. Graham do have a valid point about the Media – unfortunately, they’re just not making it. Since all Mass Media is beholden to its advertisers, and advertisers covet large demographics, Media is almost universally focused on the lowest common denominator of intelligence. The stupider the show, the larger the slice of the target demographic that tunes in. In truth, Mr. Stelly and Mr. Graham, you should be proud that Blacks are featured less in the Media. That means fewer Blacks are watching and reading the Media’s stupidity. If only I could get my children to watch less Media as well. ------------ About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much. Email: grnacres@direcway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
