As it should. People need to be made aware of what is coming on the horizon via cultural enrichment.
Coverage is a reward and an incentive to them. Psychologists have said over and over again that the news coverage simply feeds these nutjobs to do more and more attacks. The whole point of terrorism is to inflict panic, what better way to do it than to have every news station around the globe pipe hours upon hours of fear into the people's homes.
They shouldn't get 'a lot more coverage' at all, they should barely get any.
If you want to dispute the fucking dictionary on what a word means, then by all means dispute it.
Speciation Is Gradual
Let's define "media coverage" here. For example, CNN coverage of Muslim Terrorism is going to differ significantly from Fox News coverage. This is why studies are typically useless in conversations like this, since people like the OP just take the 1,000,000mile view of things and then attribute that as some blanket universal truth, without accounting for any of the details or nuances of the situation (if the study bothered to include, or even do it themselves -- read as: gender wage gap). In this case, that just because there is media coverage of something, it's inherently bad and people are OMGOMGOMG!-racists.
- - - Updated - - -
Ah yes, the typical waffling of using the strict definition or the implied context of a word, based upon how it supports your agenda tactic.
Going with the overloaded, and somewhat obfuscated, definition 1.3: A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features; one could even say something silly as "people wearing the same type of shoes belong to the same race", considering the broad use of "common feature".
Almost seems like a handful of people intentionally muddy the water to push the narrative of "race is a social construct" :^)
generally speaking you cant convert to a race.
That just means the Islamic terrorists do it better.
And which definition of "terrorist attack" was used? Which years were taken for this little survey? I bet the statistics used were somehow cherrypicked to support the desired outcome.
We should also say that the latest attacks carried out by radicals were particularly gruesome; https://www.google.nl/search?newwind...k1.ZMchMPTDXf0
https://www.google.nl/search?q=manch...SSmP1_bNkqLiM:
So, no wonder they get more media attention.
So people who accuse the broad use of racism as a technicality are the ones using a technicality to belittle the "racism sells" comment.
Typical.
I don't have an agenda. You are trying to dispute the meaning of a word, the meaning is right there, we have dictionaries for a reason. If you want to dispute the definitions then by all means contact the writers of the dictionary. I'm not here to satisfy your thoughts, I don't care about what you think something means.
Speciation Is Gradual
I think part of it is because it's easier to tell it's terrorism when it's a Muslim. Yelling allahu Akbar, wearing bomb vests, using bombs, etc. makes it pretty clear cut. When it's someone else that doesn't use the usual terrorism methods, it takes longer to make that call.
Well, that may be a fair and true statement. But in context to what the article is complaining about, I don't think a 1 killed 1 wounded attack, which might be little more than a hate crime or just a crazy guy killing certain types of people, is worth giving the same amount of coverage as a group blowing up things or driving a car into a crowd of people. I personally don't see a Dylan roof as a terrorost attack. He was a one off nut job. Not a member of a group that is help bent on world domination and destruction. So I understand why the media may have giving it less coverage, though it got plenty in my book
Granted the media loves a juicy story to sell, so they are incentivized to run a story as much and as long as possible, even when the story should get little limelight.
Last edited by Mad_Murdock; 2017-07-04 at 03:31 PM.
Aren't you more racist when there's something interesting going on with a certain group, whether good or bad, but you deliberately choose to not report it? In my books that's being more racist, be it positive or negative. If there's an interesting story being told, why not publish it? 10 people dead by a muslim truck in my neighbourhood again or a weird lunatic shooting 10 people down then kills himself, equally as sad of a story but I'm not as interested in reading articles about that than I am at reading about the muslim truck. Nothing racist, just more interest. And as much as you communists hate a capitalist market working as intended, if there is more interest in a certain article, the market will inevitably go that way and thus publish more.
Is that racist? No. It's not.