Jophiel wrote:
If that's the case here, it'll be because Obama et al have already spoken to Biden, understood him and agree that no harm was meant.
Well. Except that the offense wasn't against Obama, but against all black men who, unlke Obama, are *not* clean and articulate...
Quote:
Are you saying that, despite all the parties involved being content with the resolution, you expect the media to continue to make a story out of it or else it shows some massive bias? Interesting.
No. I expect the media to be consistent in their behavior. It's never stopped the media before to raise the cause for a whole group of people (people who are *not* Obama, or Sharpton btw) and run with it for the sake of a good story (and to rile up those who they feel were slighted).
Was the "Macaca" story really about one guy offending one other guy? Or was it about some kind of underlying racism affecting a whole group of people? I'm pretty sure it was the later that made the story a "big deal", right?
I've been ridiculously busy lately, so I honestly haven't viewed any media coverage of this yet. So I'll ask: Is the mainstream media (CBS, ABC, NBC) pushing the "Biden thinks that all black men are dirty and inarticulate" angle? Are they using the story as an opportunity to point out other "gaffs" by leading Democrats that may indicate some kind of inherent underlying racism (as they did in at least two similar cases involving Republicans in recent years)? Are they vigorously covering the handul of people protesting over the issue, or ignoring them?
The media provides a key-hole view on the world and on public events. How they cover things can have a *huge* impact on how the public percieves an issue. Something as simple as going out on the street and finding and interviewing only a set of people with a particular reaction to the issue at hand can be huge in terms of public perception.
Again. I haven't seen the coverage. I've been so busy I've barely had time to do more then sleep at home lately. But I'll take a wild guess and predict that those networks are *not* going out of their way to hype the underlying implications of his statements, nor going out of their way to find the "man on the street" and cover the offense he's taken as a result. I could be wrong, of course. Heck. I'd *like* to be wrong on this. But historical trends of media coverage of issues like this is a good indicator that I'll be right.
Quote:
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure that the pundits on FOX will keep bringing it up.
I'm sure they will. But no one else will. That's the point...