Random Painted HIghway
Member
Well of course Adrian Peterson testified in his grand jury and look what happened there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shaun King lays out all the corruption in Ferguson.
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
Well of course Adrian Peterson testified in his grand jury and look what happened there.
Why does this guy's name keep coming up when his reports are so blatantly wrong?
He may have gotten a few things right here, but we had a brief discussion about Shaun King in the Ferguson thread. Again and again he would post things on Twitter, someone would post it in the thread as fact, then it would later turn out to be completely false.
Now he's using the governor's appearance at a Wilson fundraiser to essentially push a conspiracy when in fact it's the unfortunate culture of police in general. I do not trust King, he's been wrong and this time he's stretching a fact to make a conspiracy theory. He is not a journalist, he does not care about his readers. He cares about pushing a certain agenda from an angle eerily similar to what I see on Above Top Secret each day. He should not be treated as a journalist.
He may have gotten a few things right here, but we had a brief discussion about Shaun King in the Ferguson thread. Again and again he would post things on Twitter, someone would post it in the thread as fact, then it would later turn out to be completely false.
Now he's using the governor's appearance at a Wilson fundraiser to essentially push a conspiracy when in fact it's the unfortunate culture of police in general. I do not trust King, he's been wrong and this time he's stretching a fact to make a conspiracy theory. He is not a journalist, he does not care about his readers. He cares about pushing a certain agenda from an angle eerily similar to what I see on Above Top Secret each day. He should not be treated as a journalist.
Really? Cause the Ferguson thread completely disagrees. And this is empirical data taken from public data. How about you do some research and disprove it before you start tossing out libelous statements?
These are not libelous statements. At one point, we asked people in the Ferguson thread to stop posting his tweets because they were constantly wrong.
Vermillion
Banned
They're politicians. Democrats were never some paragon of good just because Republicans seem cartoonishly evil. You're always going to be aligned with shitty people.
Except
That's libelous and defamatory by any metric. Again, disprove the statements or shut up.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Say what?
No. It's a fair statement. Why should we trust a guy on Twitter who was constantly wrong for the past month?
What makes this different is he got one thing right in this situation and then stretched that to create what essentially is the beginning of a conspiracy theory. I'm all for outing intentional racism, but what we have here is someone doing patchwork journalism with an agenda to don someone as the evil mastermind when in fact, it's just the racist culture of St. Louis policing and politics. This is exactly like the beginning of the 9/11 Truther movement. Fake journalists pushing a photo and circumstantial evidence and stretching that to create a conspiracy.
King is not a journalist.
Don't worry about it. It's not like his work will amount to anything worthwhile.
CrashSimonFaye
Banned
As a Bucs fan, I thought it was this Shaun King. Same spelling and everything.
+1
Ad hominem. It doesn't matter if he's not a journalist. Scroll down the first page and read what journalists have to say if you're so concerned about someone's job.
ersocaster
Member
You don't have to trust him. All of the information he supplied is public information. All he did was put it all in one place.
I'm concerned about his job because the reporting he did throughout the Ferguson protests was wrong. Here is a guy who people now worship as the gatekeeper of all things Michael Brown when in fact he released a complete unfactual account of the autopsy.
I have nothing personal against King. I do have a problem with social media journalism. As I said in the #GAMERGATE thread a few weeks ago, social media journalism should never be trusted. It focuses too much of the person giving it and less about the reader. It's not about the story, it's about the social media journalist getting it right, even if it turns out to be wrong later. People constantly point at the faults of mainstream media, when again and again social media journalism makes huge mistakes when it comes to reporting.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Supporters of social media journalists become militant fans if anyone questions the reports. It's not about what's right, it's about what's right in the mind of supporters.
The mainstream media can be called out for their faults in reporting all of the time, but when someone questions a Twitter user who's been blatantly false about autopsy reports and likely incited more ignorant backlash from both sides, it's called libelous.
No, he posted the gif because he's repeatedly asked you to disprove King's piece in this thread and you haven't even tried. All you've said was well he was wrong before!!!
Not to mention the same information is available about halfway down the first page from so called reputable news outlets instead of social media justice warriors.
You're ranting and raving and ain't done a gat damn fucking thing to show any of the information presented as being false. Instead of why should I listen to Shaun King, why should I listen to you? You're so hung up with "ooh what's his agenda?" that you are blatantly ignoring the facts. Come back with something stronger than an ad hominem attack. That he's being wrong in the past is as irrelevant as it is derailing, particularly when every fucking thing is sourced to easily accessible public record. These are facts being laid out.
I asked you to disprove him or shut up. You haven't done the former, so please do the latter.
I told you you can scroll down and read journalism if Tweets aren't your thing. I don't know why you're trying to make this thread about King, or making us out as worshipping him. It's inflammatory and ultimately pointless.
I'm not saying what King reported here was wrong. I'm saying the reports he used to create what essentially is a conspiracy theory is wrong. It may be based on facts, but it's all circumstantial to prove that someone is the boogey man.
It's completely unfair to the reader because it creates ignorance and false wisdom. It's eerily similar to the 9/11 Truther theories in that sense.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That's basically my stance on it, too.
And it's not as if there can't be conversations about the validity of that information, either. But the picture being assembled by the man is worth looking at, even if that means there are people discussing it on a messageboard, people who don't have as firm a grip on the legal system as Dude Abides does.
Also, the information is useful even IF you don't see what King is doing is "conspiracy theorist" at all. I don't personally think that it's worth reading that storify link and following the links within as a means to find one shadowy man at the top responsible for everything. I don't think it even does that all that well. But what it DOES do is highlight just how ridiculous the situation is - it helps highlight how the culture of St. Louis politics is working against its people. It shows examples of how that's been happening for awhile, and how that's coming to bear here.
That's useful, helpful information to have, and I think it's more important to have that information and get those links in front of more eyeballs than it is to feel irritated that people aren't as educated on how the legal system works, or that someone somewhere might "worship" the guy who collected the links.
This information can and will be a springboard for some readers to maybe become more educated about the legal system, the political climate in St. Louis, and other important factors in relation to this case, and I don't see the purpose in interrupting that or tripping it up for the sake of expressing mild frustration that people don't know as much about lawyering as you do (DudeAbides), or that people don't distrust social media as much as you do(Mully).
I don't think he's advocating that there's a single "boogeyman" who, if beheaded, will fix St. Louis' institutionalized corruption, that's not how I'm seeing all these links. But even if he is - I don't have to take the information as presented, especially since he's provided links to all that information and I can draw my own conclusion from the data he's helpfully assembled.
Okay. That's fair enough.
If people don't find the information useful they don't have to read it. It also offers some insight in the inner workings of the St. Louis political and policing culture.
With that said, wouldn't you agree there's better ways of doing it?
If you are so concerned with the validity of his claims. Why don't you disprove them? Connecting the dots between relationships and prior cases showing blatant disregard for black life doesn't seem like "pushing an agenda" to me. If anyone is pushing an agenda it's you
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think I would have done it the way he did it, but I'm also older, and the farther along I go in life the more I realize that the way I communicate with people isn't the way people really communicate with each other online so much. A 5000-8000 word article with footnotes and sources is how I probably would have tried to do it - but that's also not as urgent seeming as this is, and it's not how his particular audience is consuming information, either.
I mean, I get how it can seem irritating and annoying, and it irritates and annoys me sometimes, too. But then again, 140 character bursts chained together with links embedded in them is not really all THAT different than what we're doing here in the off-topic section of a gaming forum, right? Paragraphs in little boxes arranged chronologically.
It's sorta why I'm taking the stance that the information getting in front of as many eyes as possible is a little more important than HOW it's getting out, and WHO is putting it out there. Not to say you're not right to be concerned, but that I think educating people on the political history of St. Louis in detail carries more weight than whether or not twitter is irritating.
Exactly. The information he's putting out here is fact. That was not the case in the past.
He's informing the public, but with a sensationalist slant that stretches the story into something that's similar to a conspiracy theory.
Jmanunknown
Member
Why does it seems like you are trying to derail the thread? Instead of going on a crusade against social media journalist why not spend some of that energy being mad that their is a fair amount of corruption going on in Missouri.
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
I read all of that (and the articles) and I still don't understand what the motivation was. Not for the shooting (we call all guess to that), but the cover up. Why is Wilson so important? Why would these powerful people go to these lengths to cover up for him? If I was at the top of this entire chain, I would let one officer fall on the sword just to maintain power. But in those tweets, King points out that they would allow Missouri to burn before Wilson goes to jail. So...uh....why does this guy matter?
Cause cops protect each other.
Because I knew that when it started.
The type of corruption depicted in King's Tweets, WaPo, NYT and the streets of Ferguson has been known for years.
Having briefly served in my town's FD before I got thrown out, I caught a glance of what that looks like from the inside out. Many of the members are NYPD or retired NYPD.
The culture of policing as a whole needs to change, but it's so embedded in police departments across the country, that it will likely never be removed.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Some departments are worse than gangs when it comes to "snitching."
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
But that is a justification better suited to a situation without a major conspiracy at the top. If the picture the tweets paint is true, it would be better to "sacrifice" one small officer and keep things in the status quo.
I wish Melvin Van Peebles' Gang in Blue was more readily available.
Punchy4486
Banned
The conspiracy is that there have been so many cover ups in the past that if they don't do so in this case, the whole house of cards could come crashing down.
Well you aren't questioning the report. You are questioning the person behind the report. Do you actually have anything to say that shows what he is reporting now isn't accurate like his previous fuck ups?
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
Because Wilson would rat them out? I can see that.
But I don't think it would have come out if they just charged the dude right away. There would have been no media scrutiny or protests or anything.
What I'm saying is (because it sounds like I'm contradicting myself): It would have come out if he ratted them out, but not just from the action of charging him with a crime.
Reporters operate on the trust of the people.
To me, the claims he's making about the "most dirty man in MO," need far more information than the sources he's listed because in the past his reports and inferences have been wrong.
I've been asked by DreamDrop to stop derailing the thread via PM. I'm not sure what that means because the discussion we're having is about the information we're given and whether or I not it's valid given the sensationalistic nature of his tweets and the inferences he's making.
Being part of a club is compromised if individual members can get picked off arbitrarily.
Roorda himself said if it wasn't for a previous injury he had he would've been a cop so a Prosecutor will be the next best thing.
You mean McCullough?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Well, no. As I mentioned in one of my other replies to you, the general thrust of your posts is basically this, as you put it in your own words:
Same with DudeAbides' contributions to this thread. It's less about discussing the information as it's being presented, and more about calling attention to the fact you either a) already knew all about this or b) know more than the people who are commenting on it.
And it's cool if you already knew about this, and it's cool if you know more than the people in the thread. But it's better if that knowledge is used to help bring people reading the thread up to your level so as to push the discussion forward, as opposed to just sorta insinuating the people in the thread are just fucking up for not being on the level of understanding you're currently at.
Basically - if you could provide a context in which this information could be better processed, that'd be more helpful than simply telling people what a shithead you think Shaun King is.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
This was your first post. Remember it when responding to gaffers here. Just seems to me you're doing slight backpeddling because you realize your stance is a bit iffy but you still want to argue against any person who listens to his reports.
Well I have to disagree with that because while it is a hyperbolic statement, right now the height of MO. problems revolve around Ferguson.
The man given that label of being the dirtiest knows exactly where Wilson is by sending him donation funds, this same guy was fired for falsifying police reports repeatedly and he did everything in his power to ensure cops weren't charged for a crime the Feds provided proof saying they were lying. You could argue there are dirtier people than that but when it comes to national attention he is going to be the poster boy for whatever needs to be discussed as a problem with police culture in that state.
Don't forget fighting body cams and wanting to withhold the names of cops who shoot civilians.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm telling people that I know more.
What I'm saying is that there are better ways of depicting this information. It's unfair to the people in this thread and the public at large to make accusations about a secret man behind the scenes running the show.
As I said earlier, the way the information is released is so similar to Alex Jones, and Truthers. In all three cases, the information may be based on facts, but it makes large jumps in inferring that there's a conspiracy.
Reporting is a public service and should be held to a higher standard than what we're seeing with social media journalism. It breeds ignorance and simplifies complex issues.
I'm not backpedaling. I've said the same thing again and again, how can we trust a man that's been so blatantly careless of his readers in the past? The inferences he's making here have nothing more than circumstantial evidence to back it up. It's wrong of him and anyone to report such things because it misinforms the reader. Instead of reporting about the corruption in MO politics, it points to a man behind the scenes working the political strings.
They merely extended the grand jury's term to January: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_aa4111fc-2952-54c9-8316-76c4867dea48.html
Also, the thread title is way too narrow in scope. What King is discussing involves Ferguson, yes, but it's more an indictment of corruption in Missouri as a whole, rather than something that is unique or specific to Ferguson.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I directly quoted it, man. You just responded to the post where I did so.
Now, if you can take the information King's provided, and then recontextualize it in a way that seems way more fair to you, for the benefit of those reading the thread that you think might have been misled by King, that WOULD be helpful.
But otherwise, you are now the focus of the thread. People would like if that were not the case.
I'd probably say something along the lines that there is widespread corruption among MO polticians and police departments in St. Louis. I'd reach out for comment to the people I'm speaking about. I'd ask lawyers and professors what their take is on the legal corruption taking place across many police departments across America, and end with a quote that sums up the article's points.
The point is, if he's going to make those inferences, he needs more than 140 characters and needs a lot more takes than just his own.
"I have the documents," as Alex Jones says, is not enough.
Jmanunknown
Member
Except in this case their is no secret man running a show these are publicly elected officials who are close with each other in time where the governor of Missouri Jay Nixon is having trouble getting support from his own party.
here since you hate twitter journalism so much I found a link to proper journalist for you to show you how much trouble Jay Nixon is having.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article2069240.html
I ask once again. What accusations against Gov Nixon and his friends are incorrect? Are they not based on facts surrounding their histories dealing with police violence towards black people and how they have handled this case thus far?
If you believe corruption is a problem in the area, how is highlighting the connections between corrupt people somehow "slanted"
Lord Fagan
Junior Member
- Status