|11-28-2006, 07:43 AM||#106|
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Jul 2005
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Yes, and I didn't mean this incident in particular.
My comment was meant more in genera and not to the ideo, but to quotes in newspapers published laterl. It's easy now for everybody to come up and say Michael Richards said that and did that. And the media will write it down immediately and publish it.
I don't want to insinuate (hope that's the right term) anyone to be a liar. But I also would like to raise the question if we can believe every single word said in every single newspaper? We shouldn't jump on everything and make it a fact only because it is written in the newspaper or told on CNN.
Here in Germany it's pretty obvious with a recent debate about video games. Two weeks ago a 18-year old went amok in his former school injuring 37 people.
He wrote diaries, made movies and published texts on the internet about his feelings, his view on society and his reasnos for the amok.
First politicians, and then media jumped on the train that he played computer games and said more or less single voice that egoshooters were the one and only reason for the amok. They totally ignored what he gave as reasons.
Then RTL, the biggest television company in Europe with the biggest market share, published his last statement on their website, stating it was the unvorrected original.
What they obviously didn't know , or simply forgot, is that the original statement was available on the internet, and that several other media has published the text as well.
Comparing the text on the RTL page with the original showed that RTL just cut out many sentences. The very first one was a sentence in which the amok-runner criticised the media.
They also cut out other sentences and even whole text passages.
Remember, they said on their page this is the original text, uncorrected. They didn't say they left it uncut in particular, but they should have mentioned that they did cut out some passages.
So the uncomfortable criticism of the media and other parts were just left out, presenting another picture of his thoughts.
Still they go on saying that the reason for that amok have been computer games.
I don't want in any way either excuse what the amok-runner did, and his reasons were just sick, nor do I try to excuse what Michael Richards said.
I just wanted to say more in general that we shouldn't blindly follow the words written in newspapers or said in TV news.
I also always have to think of the fortuneteller who came up in about the middle of 1998 saying he saw the dead of Lady Di two years ago.
|11-28-2006, 07:58 AM||#107|
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Nov 2002
Local Time: 07:14 PM
I don't think anyone here is saying that their hands are clean or that they are perfect by any means or that they don't have prejudices and express them - I'm certainly not by a long shot, nor do I ignore his remorse over it.__________________
I merely think it's worth discussing when someone uses overtly racist language in public and the effect and power that language still has, so shoot me I don't want to hang Kramer or stick a fork up his butt...
Maybe, possibly something to think about. Whether she's right or wrong about it in one's personal opinion, still worth thinking about. Speaking for myself as a white person who will never know what it's like to be a minority, it's their perspective that truly matters to me.
If Michael Richards wants to get right with the black community, he'll have to do better than beg for forgiveness from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So says Janet Langhart, the former Channel 5 newsgal who knows a thing or two about bigotry. "His comments really struck a nerve with me," Langhart told us yesterday, referring to the "Seinfeld" star's torrent of hate speech. "We're only a word away from going back to the dark ages of Klansmen." Langhart, who's African-American, has been married for 11 years to former defense secretary Bill Cohen, with whom she's just written a book called "Love in Black and White: A Memoir of Race, Religion, and Romance." Due out in February, the book includes a play, written by Langhart, about a mythical conversation between Anne Frank and Emmett Till. "If Richards could read it, he might say, 'Whoa, what did I do?' " says Langhart. "As a culture, it seems we don't learn our lessons." Much like Mel Gibson's rant and Senator George Allen's "Macaca" moment, she said Richards's slurs have stirred powerful emotions. (No kidding. Actor Jamie Foxx has threatened to beat Richards to a bloody pulp.) "When people who're highly recognizable say [ racist or anti-Semitic ] things," said Langhart, "it sends a message like an electric shock that it's OK to treat people any kind of way."
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|