4 ms·

> What’s needed is for news organizations to not only report facts, but stop telling stories in ways that only benefit their own ideological systems. This is n

> What’s needed is for news organizations to not only report facts, but stop telling stories in ways that only benefit their own ideological systems. This is not a new phenomenon; it’s been happening for a looooong time. Look at the difference in how white and Black newspapers reported on the Tulsa race massacre [1]: ”More Than Two Hundred White and Colored Men, Women and Children Were Killed in the Bloody or Horrible Race Riots at Tulsa, Okla.” vs. “Two Whites Dead in Race Riot” and “Many More Whites Are Shot” All factual headlines! But some of them pretty egregiously support one particular ideological position. This was a full century ago. [1] https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2021/05/tulsa-race-massacre-newspaper-complicity-and-coverage/ https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2021/05/tulsa-race-...

nostromo 5y ago
> white and Black It was when the New York Times decided to start capitalizing black but not white I knew they were done being objective and had turned to activism. Their explanation that all black people worldwide share a common culture but all white people do not is just absurd. They’re not a serious news organization and haven’t been for some time.
- peterburkimsher 5y ago
  As the Bee Gees say regarding the New York Times: We can try to understand The New York Times' effect on man Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
- hansbo 5y ago
  Here is the article I believe the parent is referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black... I think it was rather nuanced. Several reasons given: 1) The capitalization of Black has already been accepted by the mainstream - NYT is catching up with the times 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. 3) African-American is capitalized, but not as inclusive as Black. At no point, except when referring to some early 20th century worldview, are they talking about all black people worldwide. I read the article as a purely American POV.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    > 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. What is the definition of "shared heritage" such that everyone but Whites have shared heritage?
    - caeril 5y ago
      My understanding is that: 1. Black Americans were taken away from their native specific cultures, whether it be Bantu, Hutu, Berber, etc, and unable to propagate the specifics of their cultures within communities. After emancipation, the only extant culture available was "Black". 2. White Americans generally settled into self-segregating Italian, Irish, German, etc communities or regions, and the original idiosyncrasies of these cultures persisted beyond relocation. This makes a lot of sense, and I think up until the mid-late 20th century, this was fair, but I do think that sense is losing its strength as American society becomes increasingly atomized. In 2021, it's equally valid to say that "Detroit Blacks" and "Memphis Blacks" have their own (sure, nascent, but real) disparate cultures, at the same time that it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. I don't know, we'll see where history leads us, I guess. But the change is definitely visible.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. Ok, but if this is true [1], and it’s also necessarily true by your previous claims that Whites have different culture than Blacks in general, then why not capitalize White, since it is a name for a culture. [1] given that Jews are usually considered ‘white’, and many Jews in fact do have distinct cultures - e.g. Brooklyn Jews, it’s hard to argue this.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        “Jews” is too broad a term. Ashkenazim are generally considered white, for instance, but not Sephardim and Mizrahim.
zepto 5y ago
Agreed. It’s not new. What’s new is that it’s obvious to everyone now because of the internet.
seg_lol 5y ago
> some !

nostromo 5y ago

> white and Black It was when the New York Times decided to start capitalizing black but not white I knew they were done being objective and had turned to activism. Their explanation that all black people worldwide share a common culture but all white people do not is just absurd. They’re not a serious news organization and haven’t been for some time.

peterburkimsher 5y ago
As the Bee Gees say regarding the New York Times: We can try to understand The New York Times' effect on man Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
hansbo 5y ago
Here is the article I believe the parent is referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black... I think it was rather nuanced. Several reasons given: 1) The capitalization of Black has already been accepted by the mainstream - NYT is catching up with the times 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. 3) African-American is capitalized, but not as inclusive as Black. At no point, except when referring to some early 20th century worldview, are they talking about all black people worldwide. I read the article as a purely American POV.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  > 2) Other names on American minorities with a shared heritage is already capitalized, like Latino and Asian. What is the definition of "shared heritage" such that everyone but Whites have shared heritage?
  - caeril 5y ago
    My understanding is that: 1. Black Americans were taken away from their native specific cultures, whether it be Bantu, Hutu, Berber, etc, and unable to propagate the specifics of their cultures within communities. After emancipation, the only extant culture available was "Black". 2. White Americans generally settled into self-segregating Italian, Irish, German, etc communities or regions, and the original idiosyncrasies of these cultures persisted beyond relocation. This makes a lot of sense, and I think up until the mid-late 20th century, this was fair, but I do think that sense is losing its strength as American society becomes increasingly atomized. In 2021, it's equally valid to say that "Detroit Blacks" and "Memphis Blacks" have their own (sure, nascent, but real) disparate cultures, at the same time that it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. I don't know, we'll see where history leads us, I guess. But the change is definitely visible.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > it's valid to say that American "Swedish Whites" and "Italian Whites" are far more culturally similar than they were a couple generations ago. Ok, but if this is true [1], and it’s also necessarily true by your previous claims that Whites have different culture than Blacks in general, then why not capitalize White, since it is a name for a culture. [1] given that Jews are usually considered ‘white’, and many Jews in fact do have distinct cultures - e.g. Brooklyn Jews, it’s hard to argue this.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        “Jews” is too broad a term. Ashkenazim are generally considered white, for instance, but not Sephardim and Mizrahim.

zepto 5y ago

Agreed. It’s not new. What’s new is that it’s obvious to everyone now because of the internet.

seg_lol 5y ago

> some !