6 ms·

The article is wrong. This was covered in the NY Times. The articles were published on the same day. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16prison.html http:

by Goladus 16y ago

The article is wrong. This was covered in the NY Times. The articles were published on the same day. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16prison.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16prison.html Edit-- Actually, this was covered in the NYT 4 days ago, and the article was submitted to Hacker News and ignored: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1996994 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1996994 Plus, the issue of it being "ignored by US media" is not covered by the article in anything resembling an intellectual way, and merely serves as a sensational hook to get people reading a story already covered by other sources. http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/12/georgia-prisoner-strike-comes-out-of-lockdown.html http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/12/georgia-prisoner-stri... http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=georgia_prison_strike_interview_update_dec15 http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=georgia_prison_strike_in...

jokermatt999 16y ago
You'll see the "ignored by the MSM!" angle a lot on these kind of political stories. It's on reddit all the time. Look for headlines like "WTF?! Prisoners on strike and Fox News refuses to report on it! FUCK YOU FOX!!" It's an easy angle to drum up interest in the story and pander to your readers by making them think they're getting the "real" story.
- jackolas 16y ago
  Well it was being ignored for the first few days, it only just started to get picked up by NYT etc.
joe_the_user 16y ago
The (fairly short) NY Times article was two days after the initial event. As far as I know, it made it to neither the Times front page nor Google news front page nor did it receive any other wider coverage despite being a fairly significant event (in my opinion, obviously). Also, what would constitute mentioning this lack of coverage in a fashion "resembling an intellectual way"? News stories have hooks and further reading. The problem is...?
- Goladus 16y ago
  The problem is that the hook is has nothing to do with the subject matter. The story is about a prison strike, the hook is "this story is being suppressed," which is essentially a lie. It's not a bait and reward, it's a bait and switch. It's like putting boobs in a youtube thumbnail despite there not being so much as a single woman in your video. The first step to an intellectual approach is to actually approach the issue, which this article doesn't. You would start with a more accurate description of the actual press coverage received, establishing some empirical expectation and an explanation of why this expectation was not met. The author leaves it to the reader to imagine what coverage actually means. What would have constituted adequate coverage? How does this coverage compare to coverage of other major stories? Many articles will have poor and vague answers to these questions. This article doesn't even attempt them. The next basic question to address is "why was the coverage expectation not met." The author provides only once sentence in the entire article that is even remotely related to this question ("Perhaps there was..."), and it's merely speculation that encourages the reader to imagine all sorts of nefarious possibilities. One possibility is that people just don't care that much. As I mentioned, the article was submitted to hacker news and ignored until some ridiculous bait was added to the headline. In intellectual article would have done some sort of investigation of those questions as an absolute minimum.

by Goladus 16y ago

jokermatt999 16y ago

You'll see the "ignored by the MSM!" angle a lot on these kind of political stories. It's on reddit all the time. Look for headlines like "WTF?! Prisoners on strike and Fox News refuses to report on it! FUCK YOU FOX!!" It's an easy angle to drum up interest in the story and pander to your readers by making them think they're getting the "real" story.

jackolas 16y ago
Well it was being ignored for the first few days, it only just started to get picked up by NYT etc.

joe_the_user 16y ago

The (fairly short) NY Times article was two days after the initial event. As far as I know, it made it to neither the Times front page nor Google news front page nor did it receive any other wider coverage despite being a fairly significant event (in my opinion, obviously). Also, what would constitute mentioning this lack of coverage in a fashion "resembling an intellectual way"? News stories have hooks and further reading. The problem is...?

Goladus 16y ago
The problem is that the hook is has nothing to do with the subject matter. The story is about a prison strike, the hook is "this story is being suppressed," which is essentially a lie. It's not a bait and reward, it's a bait and switch. It's like putting boobs in a youtube thumbnail despite there not being so much as a single woman in your video. The first step to an intellectual approach is to actually approach the issue, which this article doesn't. You would start with a more accurate description of the actual press coverage received, establishing some empirical expectation and an explanation of why this expectation was not met. The author leaves it to the reader to imagine what coverage actually means. What would have constituted adequate coverage? How does this coverage compare to coverage of other major stories? Many articles will have poor and vague answers to these questions. This article doesn't even attempt them. The next basic question to address is "why was the coverage expectation not met." The author provides only once sentence in the entire article that is even remotely related to this question ("Perhaps there was..."), and it's merely speculation that encourages the reader to imagine all sorts of nefarious possibilities. One possibility is that people just don't care that much. As I mentioned, the article was submitted to hacker news and ignored until some ridiculous bait was added to the headline. In intellectual article would have done some sort of investigation of those questions as an absolute minimum.