Yes.
But, it’s Mike Brown AND Eric Garner. Not just Mike Brown.
Very funny, but I find this works better when applied to chat-forums.
Yeah, I’m not sure why he labels it “Cable News” instead of “the Internet”.
For those who have been following police abuses and militarization for years, it’s been disheartening seeing that, apparently, the court of public opinion is a lot like taking a case to the Supreme Court for a specific purpose: before your issue gets the light of day, make sure you’re taking the perfectly sympathetic test case. Shouldn’t have to be that way, but I guess that’s the way it is.
For me, it brought to mind the UVA rape case discussed in the Rolling Stone article - inconsistencies and problems with that one narrative got used to dismiss the entire article (which was about way more than that one case), and in turn were used to dismiss the whole issue of college campus assaults. It was depressing as hell to see the whole media narrative become all about that one story rather than the issue, just as there was starting to be some real discussion about it and potentially some reform.
Sure, the cartoon’s situation does work for that case. Even though its references to slavery and so on seem like a direct reference instead to Ferguson, Mike Brown, and so on.
I’ve seen it there, too. E.g. Jon Stewart mentions a huge list of names of unarmed black men killed by the police, and he’s attacked by various conservatives who focus entirely on the one guy that, it turns out, actually was killed while armed. As if the rest of the list doesn’t exist and doesn’t just represent a couple weeks worth of examples of a larger phenomenon. It works for any number of things - it’s the same approach I’ve seen conservatives use for attacking the idea of climate change or evolution. “Ahah, this one narrative about changes in one type of moth isn’t as cut-and-dried as presented! Clearly all of science is wrong!”
Yet another example of the MSM’s blatant button-pushing; in this case, it’s the anecdotal fallacy.
Yeah, I’m not sure why he labels it “Cable News” instead of “the Internet”.
Distinction without a difference.
There’s one minor detail that kinda undermines this satirical piece. The news media was just as ridiculous, biased, and inflammatory in 1860 as it is today. So what’s your point?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
