Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

I've been taking pretty much everything I hear about the Standing Rock situation with a pretty large amount of salt, because almost every site that I've seen reporting stuff on it have been pretty damn biased in favor of the protesters. Which is a damn shame, because that's the sort of thing that needs good reporting, and there just ain't getting done.

What?

I'm trying to parse this in a meaningful way and I just can't. Are you seriously saying that there needs to be a nice article that frames the pipeline companies as the good guys, and the protestors as greedy environmentalists trying to put oil tycoons out a job? Maybe one talking about police officers bravely risking a scalping so they can put the injuns in their place?

[smjjames]

I've been taking pretty much everything I hear about the Standing Rock situation with a pretty large amount of salt, because almost every site that I've seen reporting stuff on it have been pretty damn biased in favor of the protesters. Which is a damn shame, because that's the sort of thing that needs good reporting, and there just ain't getting done.

What?

I'm trying to parse this in a meaningful way and I just can't. Are you seriously saying that there needs to be a nice article that frames the pipeline companies as the good guys, and the protestors as greedy environmentalists trying to put oil tycoons out a job? Maybe one talking about police officers bravely risking a scalping so they can put the injuns in their place?

I think he means one that is neutral and unbiased on either side.

[wierd]

Basic synopsis:

As part of the relocation treaty, the US gave those reservations, in totality, to those Indian nations.

At the time, the lands were considered worthless, and the consolation was meant as salt in the wound, and as false generosity about how it totally wasn't genocidal in intent.

Fast forward: the land is valuable for placing a big added pipeline on, and commercial interests want the US government to force a sovereign nation to allow the pipe's construction.

How is it possible to see it any other way than in favor of the protesters, who are being told by Darth Vader that he has decided to retroactively alter the deal, because lots of money is involved?

[Wolfhunter107]

I've been taking pretty much everything I hear about the Standing Rock situation with a pretty large amount of salt, because almost every site that I've seen reporting stuff on it have been pretty damn biased in favor of the protesters. Which is a damn shame, because that's the sort of thing that needs good reporting, and there just ain't getting done.

What?

I'm trying to parse this in a meaningful way and I just can't. Are you seriously saying that there needs to be a nice article that frames the pipeline companies as the good guys, and the protestors as greedy environmentalists trying to put oil tycoons out a job? Maybe one talking about police officers bravely risking a scalping so they can put the injuns in their place?

I think he means one that is neutral and unbiased on either side.

This. I want actual news, not some moralizing about who and who isn't in the right. That belongs in opinion pieces.

[wierd]

The treaty (yes, TREATY!) Is pretty damn explicit on this.

http://standingrock.org/fort-laramie-treaty/

The side in abrogation of treaty is the US govt. Not the souix.

[Wolfhunter107]

Which is in no way related to the media throwing integrity out the window and wholesale supporting the protesters.

[Neonivek]

Which is in no way related to the media throwing integrity out the window and wholesale supporting the protesters.

Wasn't the media against the protestors are first? or at least neutral?

err wait that is Canadian news.

What does Fox news say?

[Reelya]

Yeah, there's no way to parse that other than in favor of the protestors.

If you forced someone to accept something deemed worthless in exchange for something deemed valuable, but then later you find out that the thing you gave them has value after all, so you're just going to take that too. Well, then that's just being a born asshole and it takes a whole lot of spin to make it look good. Giving 50% of the article space to the pro-oil-company spin version isn't necessarily being objective.

Not every situation can be properly reported by giving over 50% of your space to viewpoints on both sides. e.g. would an article on the Holocaust be "unbiased" if it gave 50% of the space to NAZI talking points, and weighed them against 50% anti-NAZI opinions, as if both viewpoints were equal? Would that be an "unbiased" way to report on what happened in the Holocaust?

No, some situations are grossly unequal, or one side is way more unethical in their goals than the other, and it's not actually objective or fair reporting to treat them as if both parties are equals in power with equally valid viewpoints.

[Frumple]

Which is in no way related to the media throwing integrity out the window and wholesale supporting the protesters.

I mean... it kinda' is? Sometimes one side is in fact just kinda' flat out in the wrong and there's not really any other way you can frame it without throwing your integrity out the window.

Though that said if you're expecting integrity out of the media, the only appropriate response is to ask you to imagine an indefinite repetition of ahaha after this sentence that ends several miles of screen real estate later with a punctuation of FTFE.

[Wolfhunter107]

Yeah, there's no way to parse that other than in favor of the protestors.

Sure there is. You provide neutral reporting, and don't promote either side's viewpoint. It's really that simple.

Giving 50% of the article space to the pro-oil-company spin version isn't necessarily being objective.

Not every situation can be properly reported by giving over 50% of your space to viewpoints on both sides. e.g. would an article on the Holocaust be "unbiased" if it gave 50% of the space to NAZI talking points, and weighed them against 50% anti-NAZI opinions, as if both viewpoints were equal? Would that be an "unbiased" way to report on what happened in the Holocaust? No, some situations are grossly unequal, and it's not actually objective to treat them as if both parties are equals in power with equally valid viewpoints.

Which is why I've never suggested doing so, and to be truthful, I'm confused as to why people keep bringing it up. It's entirely possible to be neutral while reporting, and it really isn't that difficult.

[SalmonGod]

I haven't even seen standing rock reported in the slightest outside of internet-based independent news and social media. 

This is the most horrifying thing.  There couldn't be any more damning evidence that the mainstream media and government both deliberately serve wealthy interests.  This is a sensational story, but they're passing it up, while 20 different state governments send their police forces to aid an illegal private operation.

[wierd]

I think he means the difference between:

"Native american protesters, citing the Fort Laramie treaty (link) claim the pipeline is illegal, and that they are legally protecting their lands as representatives of the Souix nation bring grievance to the Indian affairs office.

However, peaceful negotiations are being severely jeopardized by violent clashes between the oil consortium behind the pipeline's construction, and the residents who gave voted against its development, which culminated in a woman suffering severe concussive trauma today."

Vs

"Today, security forces from the consortium behind the standing rock pipeline resorted to deadly force against unarmed american Indian protesters, severely injuring a souix woman this evening."

Or

"Today, efforts to complete the much needed standing rock pipeline turned ugly as souix protesters forced the security forces of the pipelines backers to use deadly force."

[Criptfeind]

I've seen it a little bit on various mainstream new sites and rarely on the television (I don't have one, so I only see news on it when I'm out and about, so I have no idea how common coverage is or "mainstream" the channels I've seen it on are) However, I'd say the coverage that there is is generally, well. Very neutral. Or even pro pipeline, so I'm not sure where all the pro protester stuff is in mainstream news.

[Frumple]

... thing is, wierd, that first bit wasn't neutral, either. Violent clashes imply it's coming from both sides and fairly equitably, which is a tough proposition to support considering what's going on. Consortium also downplays just who it is on the enforcing end, and rather severely.

It is possible to report on things neutrally but stuff like what's been going on related to these protests make it substantially harder than normal. Kinda' like the whole thing with history where there's not really a way to frame a massacre that's not either negative or downplaying mass killing.

[wierd]

I agree.  See my prior contributions on the topic.

The treaty isn't even in legalese! It is in plain English!

It clearly points to the pipeline being illegal! It is simple fact!