Return to Website

Alvin Lee Message & Discussion Board

 

We invite you to use this forum to communicate with Alvin's fans around the world, but please do so with respect and goodwill.
We reserve the right to delete any messages we deem offensive.

 

Guestbook

Index > General Discussion > Alvin Lee Message & Discussion Board > Re: again it has caught my attention.
Forum: Alvin Lee Message & Discussion Board
Start a New Topic 
  
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: again it has caught my attention.

I wasn't around here during the Peterson and Anthony cases, but if I had been I would have expressed my wonder at all the attention these two boring cases received. I found nothing of interest whatsoever in either case.

But back to the Martin case. You made many interesting statements I would like to address but at a certain point I bore myself. Lol


What I meant about the jury is that it all comes down to admissible evidence and open minds.

Email  
Re: again it has caught my attention.

Quote: Laurie
...Nobody much held off forming conclusions about Casey Anthony or OJ or Scott Peterson, and I don't recall a similar outcry to reserve judgements about them for the courtroom. The difference seems to be that a white man is suspected by many of wrongfully profiling a young black man, and then killing him in an act of race hatred or other needless violence. It really seems to incense some white folks that some black folks have come to what seems to them and their experience to be the logical, at least tentative conclusion here.


Laurie, I was disturbed to read this part of your post. If some of the white folks here are incensed that some blacks have made their own conclusions, I certainly missed it. I have read all the postings on this subject on this board and in none of them did I pick up on what you described.

I find it impossible to believe that any fan of Alvin's could be racist, but as you said, any fan of Alvin's could be anything. I just hope you are wrong about your conclusion

Re: again it has caught my attention.

"What's the point of watching or reading news if we can't have reactions to what's in it according to our own lights?"

Hi Laurie, last night I was too tired to respond to some of your points, but this one stayed on my mind.

I watch and read the news for the purpose of having an idea of what is going on in the world. The news gets filed in my head, in case I need to reference it. I generally have very little reaction to it. The only things I react to are items that I may need to follow up, or things I need to beware of.

I have a sister who has strong reactions to everything she sees and hears on the news. She often accuses me of being cold hearted because I do not allow myself to get emotional over every tragedy in the news. It took me years and years of therapy to be able to learn how to keep the tragedies of other folks from depressing me beyond reason.

We are all different and we process these things differently.

EDIT: I realize I have written several responses to your post, but I am just trying to explain my point of view after reading this from you:

"But... but... I still don't get it, Robin and Don. I really don't."

Re: again it has caught my attention.

Okay Laurie, Here's my take on the whole mess:

The media is much more widespread and pervasive than ever, and people are much more apt to form strong opinions based on less evidence (or even no evidence) than in past times. Seemingly credible public figures are more likely to make prejudicial statements. Our "real time" news culture is less patient with the process of investigating and bringing a case to trial. Business, careers, agendas, and issues are more affected by events, even if they are only tenuously related. Trials are more often highjacked by issues, issue mongers, and policy makers as they resemble less a search for justice and more a three (or more) ring circus.

I take it back - a circus is more organized and dignified, even if some of the major media players are acting like clowns . . .

The whole mess is complicated by an investigation seemingly prejudicial and incompetent from the get-go.

Yes, there have been sensational trials in our history, but never so often amongst those not in celebrity circles as in recent times.

The coverage of this and other investigations and trials is bombastic - leading to not only forming gerneral impressions, but strong polarization of opinions based on incomplete evidence, sensational journalism, and irresponsible publilc posturing.

The justice system has taken a back seat to public speculation, posturing, and questionable journalism.

Nothing has been fair about this whole event since Mr. Zimmerman first spotted young Mr. Martin. One can only hope our criminal justice system is strong enough to stay the course.

Wasn't very brief was it? Evidently, I'm just as full of hot air as all of the media mavens!

Email  
Re: again it has caught my attention.

I do agree with much of your post, Don. The 24-hour "news as entertainment" media of today are a far cry from the plainer, simpler (if definitely not kinder, gentler) news media of decades or centuries past. The increased availability in number of hours of news coverage often just means increased repetition of the same stories or shows, however. The focus has become rather obssessive, it would seem. I haven't personally encountered much commentary about the Trayvon case I would consider truly "bombastic", although, as half-New Yorker, maybe my tolerance for bombast and blab is naturally higher, ha. ;-) You see, I LIKE to hear people spout off about stuff. I don't expect that it'll all be reasonable to me or most, though hopefully sooner or later it will be. People's differing thought processes and rhythms are interesting to me. I'm not easily nor superficially swayed by the changes in news media, but I have to acknowledge some people most likely are. Is this the responsibility of the talking heads themselves? I do find it annoying when TV journalists editorialize in the middle of what's supposed to be an actual newscast, when they don't have their own opinion-oriented show. My high school journalism teach would definitely roll over!

Quote: Don B.
Okay Laurie, Here's my take on the whole mess:

The media is much more widespread and pervasive than ever, and people are much more apt to form strong opinions based on less evidence (or even no evidence) than in past times. Seemingly credible public figures are more likely to make prejudicial statements. Our "real time" news culture is less patient with the process of investigating and bringing a case to trial. Business, careers, agendas, and issues are more affected by events, even if they are only tenuously related. Trials are more often highjacked by issues, issue mongers, and policy makers as they resemble less a search for justice and more a three (or more) ring circus.

I take it back - a circus is more organized and dignified, even if some of the major media players are acting like clowns . . .

The whole mess is complicated by an investigation seemingly prejudicial and incompetent from the get-go.

Yes, there have been sensational trials in our history, but never so often amongst those not in celebrity circles as in recent times.

The coverage of this and other investigations and trials is bombastic - leading to not only forming gerneral impressions, but strong polarization of opinions based on incomplete evidence, sensational journalism, and irresponsible publilc posturing.

The justice system has taken a back seat to public speculation, posturing, and questionable journalism.

Nothing has been fair about this whole event since Mr. Zimmerman first spotted young Mr. Martin. One can only hope our criminal justice system is strong enough to stay the course.

Wasn't very brief was it? Evidently, I'm just as full of hot air as all of the media mavens!

Email