Don't Blame Native Americans for Nathan Phillips' Bad Behaviour

[Pat]

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2019/01/25/688833473/unraveling-a-washington-mall-confrontation-frame-by-frame

Her argument is everything NPR reported was factual at the time of reporting, but new information came to light. That doesn't contradict my assessment of their broadcast. It was factual, just very very very slanted.

The article is much less biased than the broadcast I listened to, but even so it's not balanced. There's an offhand mention that Nathan Phillips was an unreliable source, but nothing else negative. The other assertions they make about him are positive or neutral, like that he approached first. The Black Hebrews are barely mentioned, and while their behavior is described as harassment, the type and severity isn't mentioned. On the other hand, they repeatedly mention the Covington kids doing a tomahawk chop, and call it taunting 4 times. And statements like "Listeners can make up their own minds about whether the students deserved a break because they are young and had been initially provoked" isn't considering who's to blame, or attempting to assign relatively responsibility. It's assuming they're guilty, but saying if you want to forgive them that's okay. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that's the state of "journalism" today.

I agree with Trond, this was nothing. Which anybody who actually watched the video, either the original short one or the longer one that came out later, would know. The fact that "news" organizations took that that nothing video, and reported anything negative at all, means they weren't reporting on the substance of the matter. What they did instead was report the hysterical reaction to nothing, as if the hysterical reaction was true. A good news organization wouldn't have reported an instance of harassment, at all. They would have reported about a case of internet hysteria.

[SHARK]

Amen.

It's a shame that it isn't the former though. (But I don't think it ever really was.)

Greetings!

Hmmm. I don't know about that, Tanin Wulf. I'd say as an historian, from all that I have studied, as well as historical impressions from throughout the years, at least here in America, and Europe as well, from the early 20th century--the teens and so on--through, I suppose the 1970's, being a "Newspaperman" or "Journalist" was not only fairly lucrative and reasonably financially rewarding, but also professionally respected and celebrated. In the wider public arena, such "Newspapermen" radio and telivision journalists were formidably influential, and widely respected. Virtues they were celebrated for were their love and devotion to the truth; to accuracy; to reliably reporting what they knew; what they heard and saw; to have diligently researched their sources.

I think the state of journalism is very sad, nowadays.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Delete_me]

That's a common sentiment we hear from people who want to remember the "good ol' days," or enjoy a little Cole Porter ("anything goes"), but isn't at all associated with reality. Yellow journalism has been around and been a major, MAJOR influence since the beginning of the country. There used to be papers that Federalists would read and papers that Democratic-Republicans (Democrats) would read. And the two were absolutely vested in telling a partisan version of history.

That was true then, it's true now.

[jhkim]

That's a common sentiment we hear from people who want to remember the "good ol' days," or enjoy a little Cole Porter ("anything goes"), but isn't at all associated with reality. Yellow journalism has been around and been a major, MAJOR influence since the beginning of the country. There used to be papers that Federalists would read and papers that Democratic-Republicans (Democrats) would read. And the two were absolutely vested in telling a partisan version of history.

That was true then, it's true now.

Yeah, I completely agree. A political cartoon from 1888:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3175[/ATTACH]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#/media/File:Puck112188c.jpg

EDITED FURTHER TO ADD:

That doesn't mean that it isn't worse in some decades and better in others. I do think that things have been getting worse recently - though it is also true that politics in general is more partisan over the past three decades.

[SHARK]

That's a common sentiment we hear from people who want to remember the "good ol' days," or enjoy a little Cole Porter ("anything goes"), but isn't at all associated with reality. Yellow journalism has been around and been a major, MAJOR influence since the beginning of the country. There used to be papers that Federalists would read and papers that Democratic-Republicans (Democrats) would read. And the two were absolutely vested in telling a partisan version of history.

That was true then, it's true now.

Greetings!

Heh. Yeah, I know there has always been "yellow journalism". I just gave you an impression I had from many sources more or less over the last century. You think that journalism has always been a shitty, fucked up bunch of lying, decieving, fraudulent charlatans and demagogues?

I'm very much "associated with reality". Journalists and newspapermen, at one time, apparently *did* aspire to being a respectable profession, as opposed to being a bunch of shit-snorting baboons. There have always been those that have fallen far short of such goals. I never claimed that there wasn't.

I lament the fact that today, there's no longer any effort at even being a respectable profession. I think that isn't good for the country.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Snowman0147]

I am wondering why is this even made?  Pundit do you really think we are stupid to hate on all native Americans because of one being a utter lying shit?  Come on give us more credit here.

[Spinachcat]

Yeah, I completely agree. A political cartoon from 1888:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3175[/ATTACH]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#/media/File:Puck112188c.jpg

SUPERB FIND!!!

Thank you!!

[RPGPundit]

I am wondering why is this even made?  Pundit do you really think we are stupid to hate on all native Americans because of one being a utter lying shit?  Come on give us more credit here.

I saw some people on social media who sort-of were; that is, they thought Nathan Phillips was representative of and supported by the native community in general, when in fact the native community is strongly divided about this as they are with many issues because there's a diversity of thought.

And in either case, he's not a creation of some kind of native american narrative; he's a creation of a white leftist narrative.

[Brad]

I saw some people on social media who sort-of were; that is, they thought Nathan Phillips was representative of and supported by the native community in general, when in fact the native community is strongly divided about this as they are with many issues because there's a diversity of thought.

And in either case, he's not a creation of some kind of native american narrative; he's a creation of a white leftist narrative.

I'm a Native American and this guy is a total douchebag. The stolen valor aspect bothers me infinitely more than him being a Soros-funded shill, though.

[Delete_me]

Heh. Yeah, I know there has always been "yellow journalism". I just gave you an impression I had from many sources more or less over the last century. You think that journalism has always been a shitty, fucked up bunch of lying, decieving, fraudulent charlatans and demagogues?

More or less, yes. Punctuated by a few exceptions, many of whom get held up as shining beacons of what journalism should be.

I'm very much "associated with reality". Journalists and newspapermen, at one time, apparently *did* aspire to being a respectable profession, as opposed to being a bunch of shit-snorting baboons. There have always been those that have fallen far short of such goals. I never claimed that there wasn't.

As above, I think some of them still do, but I don't think that's a change. However, I do agree that is a lamentable thing for the country.

But I believe what's truly changed isn't the quality of journalism, it's the effect of it. Mass media was and is a game changer, and is very, very young compared to the field of journalism.

[SHARK]

More or less, yes. Punctuated by a few exceptions, many of whom get held up as shining beacons of what journalism should be.

 As above, I think some of them still do, but I don't think that's a change. However, I do agree that is a lamentable thing for the country.

But I believe what's truly changed isn't the quality of journalism, it's the effect of it. Mass media was and is a game changer, and is very, very young compared to the field of journalism.

Greetings!

Indeed. I have heard many lament that the "Digital Age" has essentially made "Journalism" obselete. Some exemplars of such have made the case that someone who is even a minor internet personality, can write reasonably well, and has a camera, can often make "stories" happen or bring them to the public awareness much faster and more meaningfully than any professional, heretofor "Official" news organization. Multiply that effect by 200,000 plus hundreds of thousands of people taking pictures with their cell phones, making you-tube videos, and facebook posts, and at the very least the Journalism industry has cratered. Magazines, Newspapers, have had 40, 50, 60% or more plunges in subscriptions, virtually overnight. It's like, in a decade, much of official media has been reduced overall by 75% from what it was, not so long ago. TV network news folks have taken a steep plunge, and with enhanced internet, even the celebrated Cable News are having an impact on them from internet writers, thinkers, and so on. The Democratization of journalism, of media, has had an enormous, industry-wide effect.

Think about how much an effect someone like Ben Shapiro has. He doesn't work for a newspaper; he doesn't work for a network news channel; he doesn't even work for a Cable news program or channel, such as MSNBC, CNN, or FOX. The man works for an interweb news program, and has millions of followers, millions of views, and now books and article as well, too. When he speaks, people listen. It's a very different media world from even, say, 2000-2005. In 12, 13 years, the landscape has undergone profound changes.

When I was a kid, there was Tom Brokaw, Sam Donaldson, and Dan Rather. That's all there was on TV. Beyond that, I watched my local news people and news reporters for our home town, and our home town newspaper. The newspaper was also very important. Lots of people paid attention to what our newspaper said in their Editorial page, for example. Occasionally, some paper from San Francisco, LA, Chicago or New York would have some influence on folk's opinions, but it was a very different media world back then.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Spinachcat]

On the topic of Native Americans and those who would sully their memory...

Elizabeth Warren Identified Herself As 'American Indian' On Texas Bar Registration
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/elizabeth-warren-identified-herself-apos-140625969.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-american-indian-texas-bar_us_5c5ad6f8e4b00187b556e54a