161
Not shocking. A lot of the people who claim to be the most "patriotic" or "religious" seem to be overcompensating for something else they're hiding. Kind of like the extremely "straight" types with gigantic closets.
It's the whole projection thing. Everything they complain that the liberals are doing, they're actually doing, whether it's to divert attention or whatever.
This is why the book banners at the last school board meeting gave my wife & I pedo vibes.
The Patriot Front group are bunch of crazy fucks.
Is there a word for the exact opposite of shocked?
I'm sure the germans have one. They have a word for every edge situation it seems.
Projection seems to be their favorite pastime.
Stupid biased headline. Alternate headlines that have different biases.
- White man pleads guilty to possessing child pornography.
- Utah man pleads guilty to possessing child pornography.
- Utah citizen pleads guilty to possessing child pornography.
- Unemployed man pleads guilty to possessing child pornography. (not sure if the guy is actually unemployed)
None of the above are as click-baity which is why they weren't chosen.
Biased? Was he not a member of Patriot Front?
Seems that he is a member, but you may be missing my point. This is the equivalent of a headline that reads - "Black man steals from store". The goal of writing such a headline is to make certain people click through and give it their attention.
He is also a Utah citizen, etc. Why would they choose to emphasize that one aspect? I'm not suggesting that Patriot Front members are more or less likely to plead guilty to possessing child pornography. I have no idea about that, but this article is subtly hinting that.
Actually, it is extremely relevant to the story that this person was a member of a terrorist group that is for implementing theocracy, repealing the rights of women and queer folk, and accusing their political enemies pedophilia.
Hm. Seems like the interface ate my comment? Let me try again.
Actually, it is extremely relevant to the story that this person was a member of a terrorist group that is for implementing theocracy, repealing the rights of women and queer folk, and accusing their political enemies pedophilia.
I don't see how that's relevant.
However, if your point is that this person is prominent enough (due to his misdeeds) to the point where stories like this are newsworthy, then sure, that's a fair point. I hadn't heard of him prior, but obviously it doesn't mean others hadn't.
Only comments on account are defending a pedophile, white supremacist terror organization. Not sus at all.
Yep, cause a mass migration from Reddit didn't just happen.
Not sure how you interpreted what I was saying as defending a pedophile.
Genuine question - which part of what I said did you interpret as me defending a pedophile?
Please go back to reddit.
Actually, just please stop using the internet. You are insufferably obnoxious.
So why are you defending patriot front so hard here? Who cares if a bunch of traitors also looks like pedophiles.
So why are you defending patriot front so hard here?
When did I do that?
You're trying to link this to anything but patriot front.
I was originally trying to unlink it from everything actually.
But yeah, I suppose that's a fair point. I could see why you would think that even though it wasn't my intention.
My original point is still that it seems click-baity. That is, I don't see how knowing this bit of info helps me make any decisions in my life. Seems pretty sensational and the guy seems like a nobody.
OTOH, I can see how it could drive clicks and engagement (see comment section here).
If he is a member, how is that biased to comment on it?
Is it presenting facts that you don’t like?
If he is a member, how is that biased to comment on it?
Seems like you're still missing my point? The article, as headlined, is designed get a rise and to get clicks.
Is it presenting facts that you don’t like?
More like presenting facts I don't care about. Would you care at all about this if it was one of my alternate headlines?
It’s pointing out facts.
Would you prefer the headline to be ‘Person pleads guilty to crime” or would that be to click baity too?
Getting closer to my point.
Person pleads guilty to crime
This is a pointless headline that no one cares about. It would be extremely not click-baity to the point that it's not newsworthy.
When I'm referring to bias I'm also talking about what is and isn't deemed newsworthy.
Maybe we should run all article headlines past you first so you can give your opinions on it.
¯\(ツ)/¯
Or the news outlets could do a better job picking what to report on.
I think calling out pedophile Nazis is probably the nicest thing that should be done to them, but that’s just me.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
The question is whether it's a news organization's job to amplify that. I don't really know the answer to that, but it really does seem irresponsible given all the other things that can be reported on.
You don’t think it’s responsible for a news organization to call a pedophile Nazi a pedophile Nazi?
You do know news organizations can report multiple things at once right?
You don’t think it’s responsible for a news organization to call a pedophile Nazi a pedophile Nazi?
Depends on how prominent that pedophile nazi is. But yeah, I think there's a line where it becomes kinda pointless noise. <rando nobody nazi> is a <bad thing> is a dumb story to report on, IMO.
You do know news organizations can report multiple things at once right?
Obviously.
Being black is not a choice. Being a Patriot Front member is.
Are you defending Patriot Front?
Not rhetorical. Genuinely confused.
Am not. By all accounts, they seem to be an awful group.
Cry harder, dickhead
If he had been a priest, it would have said so and he would show up on https://lemmy.world/c/priest_arrested
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !priest_arrested@lemmy.world
Maybe so, but that also would've been bias and my comment wouldn't change (actually it'd be verbatim). In both cases, who gives a crap? This kind of news is just not that interesting outside of driving clicks. I didn't know this person before and I won't remember him later. I've also learned nothing about how pervasive child pornography might be amongst members of the Patriot Front.
The Patriot Front is one of the groups that perpetuate the conspiracy theory about the secret Democratic cabal of child sex abusers. So the emphasis here is quite relevant. It's like saying "anti-LGBTQ man arrested for soliciting gay sex" (something that also seems to happen with depressing frequency). If membership of a group is relevant to the alleged crime then or course it should be noted.
I guess what you're saying is that the hypocrisy is worth highlighting? I'd agree with that as long as the subject is worth reporting on to begin with. As mentioned in a previous comment, he may or may not be a newsworthy figure, but I had never heard of him prior.
anti-LGBTQ man arrested for soliciting gay sex
This would be an uninteresting headline to me, too. Anything of the format <member of group> arrested/charged/etc for <crime> is usually uninteresting. This is because in most cases, <member of group> is hardly ever newsworthy. I think the reason any news organization ever publishes something like that is to drive engagement for revenue. The engagement comes from stirring emotions, not from reporting on topics that matter.
The newsworthy exception is if the figure was prominent and had a real effect on society (e.g. the Harlan Crow / Clarence Thomas stuff).
Anyway, I do appreciate that your comment seems to be in good faith (compared to some of the others in the thread).
Because unemployed people from Utah aren't known for using pedophilia as an attack on who they see as their opponents, so that wouldn't make sense.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
161 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7302 readers
551 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS