3 ms·

I think we might disagree on what uncommon characteristics make something worthy of national or international news. Again, this type of violence - both death b

by radlad 1y ago

I think we might disagree on what uncommon characteristics make something worthy of national or international news. Again, this type of violence - both death by knives and attacks by the mentally ill - is unfortunately somewhat common in the US, and I've shared statistics showing this. (The US is huge - I'm not sure you're appreciating that it's a country with 40x the population of Sweden!) This did make the local city and state news, which seems appropriate! In fact, national news stories were run too - the issue from the right is: not enough stories. Of course, as soon as I say it's somewhat common, I must also point out that even if occurrences happen multiple times daily, the incidence rate towards any individual is extremely low. People aren't being murdered left and right but a number are killed each day. It is a BIG country. And maybe this fact should be newsworthy! A lot of the left thinks it should - and that we should be more careful about giving weapons out, including to those diagnosed with mental illness, and offer mental health services and medicarions. The right's quick to point out that knives can kill too. But then they defund social services for mental health (see the Big Beautiful Bill as a recent example.) This is a place the left and right could join forces, but instead the right chooses to complain about the media and stole divisiveness instead of solving the problem (keep in mind - Republicans have FULL control of our federal government right now.) Regardless, I don't see why the victim's nationality (or upbringing, or gender, or attractiveness) make this newsworthy. Or why she has received more news coverage than the most recent school shooting.

dijit 1y ago
Daniel Penny was considered newsworthy.
- radlad 1y ago
  I'm not going to respond to something so dismissive. I can see you're no longer interested in engaging. Cheers.
  - dijit 1y ago
    I don't understand why they're considered different; if one is newsworthy to a side and the other is somehow not then I'd like to understand- clearly I have missed something? I believe that you are being told by your media bubble that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different. Help me understand why, what are they telling you?
    - radlad 1y ago
      > Clearly you are being told that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different. This is no longer coming from a place of curiosity, but a presumption of superiority. If you assume I am simply brainwashed and have nothing worthwhile to say, there's no point continuing this discussion. Feel free to message me off HN if you change your mind.
      - dijit 1y ago
        There's just me and you here, nobody is reading this thread anymore. I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan. I'm not attacking you, and I am curious. To me Iryna Zarutska is newsworthy, in all the ways I explained. Jordan Neely was publicised widely despite it being much less harrowing and random; so I'm genuinely curious as to why. This isn't a "gotcha". Help me understand how you reconcile this - or if you don't, then fair play and I hope you at least understand that you are not immune to propaganda either.
        radlad 1y ago
        > I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan. No, my problem is your presumption - even here - that I am brainwashed when we were having a logical, rational conversation. I'm incredibly disappointed in you and I really hope you change your tune. This isn't what I expect from you, honestly.
dijit 1y ago
That's a thoughtful push from you, and I certainly agree that the sheer scale of the US means a huge number of local tragedies get buried in the national statistics. I also agree that newsworthiness isn't just about raw numbers. Where we differ, though, is on why certain stories get the national spotlight. You're right that attacks involving knives or people with mental illness are common enough to be local news. So, what stories go national? A story goes national not because it's a statistical outlier, but because it's a perfect political vehicle. The Daniel Penny case wasn't statistically rare, but it became a national crisis because it was a flawless vehicle for the national debate about race, vigilante justice, and public safety. It fit the dominant media's narrative template perfectly. The Iryna Zarutska case, however, was politically toxic for that same dominant national media, so it was initially downplayed. She was a refugee fleeing war for safety who was randomly killed on U.S. public transit. That narrative has a strong international hook that should have made it national news instantly, but the political optics (Black assailant, white refugee victim, raising questions about unchecked urban violence) meant national outlets made a visible choice to leave it local. The problem isn't that she didn't get enough coverage, but that this hesitation felt like the media running political interference. When people see the media instantly mobilise for the Penny story but drag their feet on the Zarutska story, that perceived selective outrage is the root cause of the media mistrust we were talking about from the beginning. It makes people feel the press is choosing sides, not choosing news. I'm not sure why she got more air-time than the latest school shooting; that would be in line with talking points regarding gun control and has a visceral response in people because it's children being targeted.

by radlad 1y ago

dijit 1y ago

Daniel Penny was considered newsworthy.

radlad 1y ago
I'm not going to respond to something so dismissive. I can see you're no longer interested in engaging. Cheers.
- dijit 1y ago
  I don't understand why they're considered different; if one is newsworthy to a side and the other is somehow not then I'd like to understand- clearly I have missed something? I believe that you are being told by your media bubble that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different. Help me understand why, what are they telling you?
  - radlad 1y ago
    > Clearly you are being told that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different. This is no longer coming from a place of curiosity, but a presumption of superiority. If you assume I am simply brainwashed and have nothing worthwhile to say, there's no point continuing this discussion. Feel free to message me off HN if you change your mind.
    - dijit 1y ago
      There's just me and you here, nobody is reading this thread anymore. I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan. I'm not attacking you, and I am curious. To me Iryna Zarutska is newsworthy, in all the ways I explained. Jordan Neely was publicised widely despite it being much less harrowing and random; so I'm genuinely curious as to why. This isn't a "gotcha". Help me understand how you reconcile this - or if you don't, then fair play and I hope you at least understand that you are not immune to propaganda either.
      - radlad 1y ago
        > I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan. No, my problem is your presumption - even here - that I am brainwashed when we were having a logical, rational conversation. I'm incredibly disappointed in you and I really hope you change your tune. This isn't what I expect from you, honestly.

dijit 1y ago

That's a thoughtful push from you, and I certainly agree that the sheer scale of the US means a huge number of local tragedies get buried in the national statistics. I also agree that newsworthiness isn't just about raw numbers. Where we differ, though, is on why certain stories get the national spotlight. You're right that attacks involving knives or people with mental illness are common enough to be local news. So, what stories go national? A story goes national not because it's a statistical outlier, but because it's a perfect political vehicle. The Daniel Penny case wasn't statistically rare, but it became a national crisis because it was a flawless vehicle for the national debate about race, vigilante justice, and public safety. It fit the dominant media's narrative template perfectly. The Iryna Zarutska case, however, was politically toxic for that same dominant national media, so it was initially downplayed. She was a refugee fleeing war for safety who was randomly killed on U.S. public transit. That narrative has a strong international hook that should have made it national news instantly, but the political optics (Black assailant, white refugee victim, raising questions about unchecked urban violence) meant national outlets made a visible choice to leave it local. The problem isn't that she didn't get enough coverage, but that this hesitation felt like the media running political interference. When people see the media instantly mobilise for the Penny story but drag their feet on the Zarutska story, that perceived selective outrage is the root cause of the media mistrust we were talking about from the beginning. It makes people feel the press is choosing sides, not choosing news. I'm not sure why she got more air-time than the latest school shooting; that would be in line with talking points regarding gun control and has a visceral response in people because it's children being targeted.