Uechi-Ryu.com

"But its still---to use your term--"provoked".....just like in my example, if I scripted a event, hired actors, set up a situation for the specific intention of "provoking" you into violence....would you accept the rational that you were violently unstable already--I just crafted and opportunity to show it?
And would you further accept your reaction to be a valid extention to all gay men in Boston..or the nation for that matter?"

Really? Didn't you read my post? I clearly explained the difference between a bust and entrapment. Here's another example: I saw on Cops a snare where they left a truck unattended and hoodlums began to rob it and were nailed. Or where an undercover agent appeared to act drunk and alone in an alley. The behaviors these lures "provoked" weren't artificially generated. They merely allowed intrinsic propensities for thievery and robbery an expression. And all these people were prosecuted and convicted, not freed because of entrapment!

Similarly, no one cajoled these people into being prejudiced. They let loose with their own venom. I also clearly covered the issue of gay men in Boston. Maybe you missed that? I never heard Quinones damn the entire nation based on the small sample. Could you direct me to when he asks us to "prejudge" mainstream americans on the basis of this sample?

"As such its not so much an example of "intolerence" as it is tolerence."

It's an example of both. As was explained earlier, if 1/3 of lawns in the USA were found to have mines, well, THAT is the news, not the fact that 2/3 are ok!

"Nope, not really, the narrtive in this case is that essentially that the USA is bad, racist nation---a conclusion that John Q little street play did not support--quite the opposite in fact..since it did not fit the narrative we have to argue about it."

IMHO, you were predisposed to overreact to Q's statements and the piece. He didn't say the whole USA was bad and racist. He said there was a lot of venom out there, and he qualified this by pointing out that more people spoke up for the muslim woman. That doesn't negate the venom! I understand that you don't experience a lot of prejudice nor see much and perhaps this is why the piece offends you so much. I HAVE been assaulted in a hate crime, denied access to housing, marriage, eligibility for military service, security at employment, and so on. *I* can tell you occasional prejudice IS a big problem. Maybe this is the message of the piece you could benefit from absorbing!

As for the extension of the car analogy, you lost me. Variation, change, and exception is "news"--so are other things. But finding venom where one would hope there is none is "news." Reporting the car accident is "news." Reporting that on the 5 between la jolla and clairemont last night there was no car accident is "olds." Sure, it may be news if there is unexpected quiet on the streets for a period of time, and Quinones would do well to report that when its newsworthy. However, quiet stretches on the highway from time to time do not condemn him for reporting on accidents nor is he obligated to report on nonevents or what you consider appropriate for him.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Not really, you simply asserted such a difference. And frankly its not nearly as different as you would wish....a distinction with very little difference,,,and again another reason why legit studies have very specific rules and guidelines.

And there are still several issues:

-If the play meets none of the qualifiers of a legit study how can one possibly trust the conclusions...you BTW can't.

-How about the inherent flaws with projecting its conclusions onto a larger populations--as I mentioned, just because I might be able to "provoke" you into violence--using paid actors and a script---does not mean that I can then project your response onto all gay men living in Boston.

"Its an example of both"

But in that case only one side was sold. Nobody bothered to highlight the much more common acts of tolerence and actual defense of Muslims---by a factor of 2-3xs I might add.

In your own profession if you had a treatment that was 2-3xs more effective wouldn't that kinda be the point of the discussion?

"I have been the victem of discrimnation"

So have I. Its why I don't excuse it and why when people step up against it its well worth pointing out.

"He didn't say that the whole USA was bad and rascist"

He didn't have to--that is the narrative--he and the person that helped design the play, simply assumed that intolerence would be the norm and when the results didn't match the narrative, but instead went the other way with some force, he failed to highlight that and instead still spun it as intolerence.
Lets not forget that is how its being used/characterized on the website from which it came.

Again, if you were to run a study and the results came back 2-3xs in the negative for your assumptions---you would be laughed out of your profession if you failed to report exactly that.

(and BTW if your going to argue that jounalism does not have such tough requirements---that simply another reason not to trust its conclusions. )

Sorry I did not mean to be obtuse---to me the real story here is that most of the people in the play were not only very tolerent but aggressivly so---willing to confront the intolerent.......the story, in keeping with the car anology is not that Bently and Fords are different--the story here is that people did not respond as John Q and the person that designed the play assumed they would---again in context with the car analogy---you would expect that a person when offered a Bentley in trade for their Ford would take it---2-3xs more people refusing to take such a trade would be news.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

"Not really, you simply asserted such a difference [entrapment vs not]."

True, I did assert this difference. However, it's the one the courts and society recognize. Take it or leave it.

"If the play meets none of the qualifiers of a legit study how can one possibly trust the conclusions...you BTW can't."

This was a casual study and I don't remember Quinones extrapolating it to the rest of the nation as if it were a representative sample. Could you quote where he overreaches?

"But in that case only one side was sold. Nobody bothered to highlight the much more common acts of tolerence and actual defense of Muslims---by a factor of 2-3xs I might add."

He was completely forthcoming about this finding, and he highlighted what he thought was notable. I bet that if he'd done an earlier report where 90% of people jumped on the Muslim, he'd have highlighted the improvement. But that wasn't the case; the NEWS part of his finding was a significant frequency of prejudice.

"In your own profession if you had a treatment that was 2-3xs more effective wouldn't that kinda be the point of the discussion?"

I'm glad you asked! It sure depends on the context. It depends, in fact, upon what is NEWS:

1) If a study shows that B is much more effective than A, the news is "B beats A!"

2) If a study shows that B is ineffective, then the news is "B fails for condition X!" NOT that A continues to work for it. You may have heard all the recent buzz about Vytorin, subject of editorials for being prescribed in a small but excessive number of cases when better proven medications are available. The infrequent event was the NEWS. The standard and preferred treatment was the OLDS and got mentioned in passing.

3) If a study shows that doctors fail to provide treatment for condition X properly 1 third or THIRTIETH of the time, THAT is the NEWS. The fact that they do it right a lot of the time is the OLDS. The expected. The non news.

So, when disturbing prejudice pops up often, even 2-3x less often than support, that's still the anomaly, and its also the concerning finding, the danger that requires correction, hence, the NEWS. That's how news has always worked; next issue.

"He didn't have to--that is the narrative --he and the person that helped design the play, simply assumed that intolerence would be the norm and when the results didn't match the narrative, but instead went the other way with some force, he failed to highlight that and instead still spun it as intolerence."

Here we disagree. You don't like him; you prefer he'd have thrown a party and basically ignored frequent, strident acts of public prejudice. Ok. So don't watch him! Reporters might differ in which elements of a story they find most notable. You and Quinones disagree on this, obviously. But Quinones choices are perfectly defensible and understandable to much of the audience out there. It's not as if he made anything up or highlighted a truly rare or negligle act. So if you just don't like what he's selling don't buy it.

_________________
--Ian