150,000+ people die every day, and you probably don't usually hear about 99.99% of them. It's almost like it's the circumstances under which people die or the events causing their deaths that make them newsworthy.

I don't know what level of coverage you expect to see. If you go to the U.S. News section of virtually all of the news outlets I cited, this is a lead story. If you choose to believe Kelhus's gaslighting rather than reality, that's on you.

Kelhus thinks it should be higher but he thinks the news is suppressing it bc there is something to the story to make Palestinians look bad. thats the Kelhus translator for you guys who dont realize what he is doing.

I am merely pointing out the double standards around Israeli's and Palestinians.

You haven't come close to proving a double standard imo.

What level of coverage would you expect to see in the media but for this double standard that you believe is distorting the picture?

it would be THE lead story if 3 Jewish persons were shot or if a 6 year Jewish boy was stabbed and killed due to Jihad.

so I guess I hope that I dont get proven right.

I shouldnt need to illustrate the rest of the obv examples. Jews are killed by terrorist Jihadi extremists. Palestinians die in explosions that are possibly air strikes. if you cant see the difference in reporting then I am not going to be able to help you.

Your analogies are bad because no Jew was involved in either of the alleged anti-Arab hate crimes you brought up. There is still a remarkable paucity of details about what happened, but it seems the shooter was a religious Christian, so there may be some religious motivation that way.

A more correct analogy would be if a religious Christian shot 3 Jews for religious reasons, in which case it would definitely be a big story. I would assume it would be a big story if a religious Christian shot 3 Palestinians for religious reasons (which it seems may have happened), which is why the relative lack of media attention surprises me.

Um...

Lol, two clowns arguing about what religious angle would make a shooting a top story for the MSM instead of simply admitting the story actually is a top story.

Just how many times a day should a new article, or a new TV news spot, appear for there to be the proper coverage?

Well, when it comes to national media reporting acts of violence on one extreme we have the George Floyd and Trayvon Martin situations, where the media went wall to wall for months and pretty much instigated race wars, because the narrative fit their ideological views of the world so well (Although in the Trayvon Martin case they had to digitally lighten Zimmerman's skin and on the spot create a new racial category "White Hispanic" to make it work, but once they did so it worked well).

And on the other extreme we have your typical white guy who gets executed by a black criminal that gets virtually zero coverage because it doesn't fit the narrative at all. (I can give examples if you want, but I am guessing you dont). And everything else is going to be somewhere in the middle. And you can normally tell where things are going to land based on how it checks of the liberal media's ideological boxes; but sometimes I am surprised at initial reporting being too low or high, and wonder what is going on. 3 days in this continues to be one of those cases.

the story is all over the place. no need to lie about it.

Kelhus,

The bottom line is that you need to stop with your "the MSM isn't covering X" routine. You have made this assertion countless times. Every time, it has been demonstrably false.

You have been given an immense amount of rope, but there is a limit. You have hit it.

Interesting how the MSM IS making such a big deal out of the President of Harvard plagiarizing, when I dont think anyone actually cares overmuch, except apparently journalists. Maybe because they write for a living, it is personal for them.

I was in the hard sciences as opposed to social sciences, but much of writing academic papers is repeating a lot of the same basic information over and over and over, before you get to the actual new stuff, which often isn't much. And it is a pain in the ass to try to rewrite the same stuff over and over and over in different ways. Even direct quoting in the correct format is very tedious. I suspect social science academic publishing this might actually be worse, as it relies more on subjective analysis and less on hard data.

That being said, substantively I doubt the alleged plagiarizing affected Gay's scholarship much at all. If anything, it just showed a professional propensity towards taking shortcuts to get through the tedious parts of being an academic.

It seems because no one actually cares (outside of some Republican congressional political grandstanding) Harvard can just ignore the criticism and things will blow over. Still it is interesting how the media themselves seem to care so much.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/educatio...tions-ae494ca7

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/u...lagiarism.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67782799

--

Any actual evidence for this statement beyond your own personal lack of concern for intellectual honesty? The president of an elite institution committing academic fraud sounds like it would be a big deal to a lot of people.

Actually it isn't hard at all to write the intro section to a journal article, a freshman should be able to manage that without committing fraud.

Between grant applications and writing papers I found having to find ways to write the same thing over and over very tedious (although I did it), and I only did it for about 8 years total (counting PhD) and wasn't a particularly prolific publisher. Apparently Gay found it tedious too, which is why she didn't even bother to try.

I see nothing to indicate that except for obvious political reasons, anyone but the press cares about this overmuch. Harvard itself seems intent just to ignore the story and wait for it to blow over, so obviously they aren't over concerned by "academic fraud" from their own president. And the people that care for political reasons will move on when the next politically salient story pops up.

If you see this differently than I guess we will just have to wait and see how things play out.

nobody cares about plagiarism. this is all drummed up by the Israeli lobby bc of that stupid hearing. now they are making an example of her.

It is unsurprising that someone from the "alternative facts" branch of society does not care about plagiarism.

Would love for you to point out these alternate facts

Show me where the media touched you.

Probably a fairly accurate metaphor in this case.

Obviously her performance in the hearings (and behavior that got her to that point) is the nexus of all of this. But still, of all the things to potentially go after her for, attacking her for plagarazing the acknowledgements section of a paper she wrote, indicates it is something the media itself actually cares about, that I doubt most people, even in academia, care about.

+1

Any Maga media considered « none fake news ».

I don't ever quote maga media. You guys need to try harder. Actually I guess you don't since you can just make up lies.

???
We are talking about duynian , not you yeah ?
Ps: I never lie .