media inequality

[Court8133]

I have never started a thread in here but..

http://inews6.americanobserver.net/c...y-rights-march


This article talks about both sides view of the media coverage on the Gay Rights protest. But I was wondering who actually knew this was going on? I didn't, but I didn't know anything about the tea parties either until I started reading in this forum. I heard about the protest on The Daily Show and it made me curious about how biased the coverage actually was.

[thumper6423]

All of our media here in the US is very biased and censored. You'd be amazed at how much no one reports as well.

[txmusicmom]

Originally Posted by thumper6423

All of our media here in the US is very biased and censored. You'd be amazed at how much no one reports as well.

Or how much only one news source covers until finally the others have to start reporting........i.e. Van Jones.....

[cassie-in-texas]

That's why you've gotta check out several sources. Editorial bias is rampant from both sides of the issues.

[Scorpiosue1102]

I'm not surprised that some media outlets did not cover Gay Rights protests. They're not interested in something that like that. Now if there was someone getting beat up at the protest they'd be all over it. Peaceful Gay Rights protest and the interest in waning. The gay vote is not something to push aside. When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is reversed may be very good for many progressive/liberal politicians.

When you have thinking like this (see below) from John Boehner it is understandable why something like sexual orientation equality is not coverd by some media outlets:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10...y5381671.shtml

[Court8133]

He is ridiculous. A hate crime is a hate crime and they should all be punished as such. At one point he says "could eventually invite the prosecution of Americans for their thoughts and religious beliefs, basic provinces protected by the First Amendment."

How? unless you commit a hate crime or your words encourage someone else to. Regardless of what you believe about someone you have no right to beat their face in. Seems simple enough to me. His oposition is clearly based on his prejudice even if he doesn't say so. As for the media coverage I know the media is extremely biased but I think it is a little crazy that 75,000 people protesting doesn't warrant something. I have heard about ity bitty gatherings at town halls here in Texas but not this? Really? I seems like if it isn't one group it is another.

Originally Posted by Scorpiosue1102

I'm not surprised that some media outlets did not cover Gay Rights protests. They're not interested in something that like that. Now if there was someone getting beat up at the protest they'd be all over it. Peaceful Gay Rights protest and the interest in waning. The gay vote is not something to push aside. When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is reversed may be very good for many progressive/liberal politicians.

When you have thinking like this (see below) from John Boehner it is understandable why something like sexual orientation equality is not coverd by some media outlets:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10...y5381671.shtml

[cassie-in-texas]

Originally Posted by Lily Rose Scraps

Regardless of what you believe about someone you have no right to beat their face in. Seems simple enough to me.

[Theresa Hernandez]

Originally Posted by Lily Rose Scraps

He is ridiculous. A hate crime is a hate crime and they should all be punished as such. At one point he says "could eventually invite the prosecution of Americans for their thoughts and religious beliefs, basic provinces protected by the First Amendment."

How? unless you commit a hate crime or your words encourage someone else to. Regardless of what you believe about someone you have no right to beat their face in. Seems simple enough to me. His oposition is clearly based on his prejudice even if he doesn't say so. As for the media coverage I know the media is extremely biased but I think it is a little crazy that 75,000 people protesting doesn't warrant something. I have heard about ity bitty gatherings at town halls here in Texas but not this? Really? I seems like if it isn't one group it is another.

Exactly! And even though beating someone's face in is already illegal, the intent behind the crime IS important. It DOES matter.

[FrenchRuby]

Originally Posted by Scorpiosue1102

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."

...

"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.

I expect he'll feel differently when/if he becomes gay later in life.

[Court8133]

Originally Posted by FrenchRuby

I expect he'll feel differently when/if he becomes gay later in life.