A wild Just Asking Questions suddenly appeared!

That post reminded me that I can still see microdong’s posts

lol wtf is this ****

You mean why does CNN not amplify something you found on the Breitbart black/Muslim/immigrant crime section?

Muslim Terror Attacks Get 357 Percent More Media Coverage Than Those by Other Groups: Study


Not good enough you want it higher?

whoever knew the one thing libs and conservatives across the country would unite around in 2019 is a mutual hatred of the cesspool that is CNN

I've just been looking at wikipedia and their lists of terror attacks since 2000 with 5+ kills.

Apparently incidents like Dylann Roof's shooting aren't classed as terror attacks.

So you have things like 9/11 and the Boston bombing etc. compared to things like a pro-choicer letter bombing pro-lifers and a black man shooting white cops as revenge for cops shooting black men.

Hardly surprising when Islamic terrorists court publicity.

I suppose it's a shocker the NZ shooting is in the news a lot after it was livestreamed (which I guess wouldn't be classed as a terror attack if in the US either - all so confusing ).

Why do you care though? If you're interested in bias in reporting its a bit odd to start with something so ill defined as coverage levels of terrorist attacks. The fact that you approached the topic in the manner you did makes your motivations entirely suspect.

CNN is carrying a story on this.

The study period was between 2006 and 2015, so "like 9/11" doesn't cut it. The study also used the Global Terrorism Database which includes the Dylann Roof shooting and the study actively references the Roof shooting in its final report so "apparently incidents like Dylann Roof's shooting aren't classed as terror attacks" also doesn't cut it.

The report also claims that if they excluded high profile attacks such as Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon that their findings were actually strengthened (pg 24) so "you have things like the Boston bombing compared to things like a pro-choicer letter bombing pro lifers" also just doesn't cut it.

Except both resulted in 5 deaths and your own article says number of deaths is a huge factor. In your time frame:

13 islamic
6 unknown motive
14 islamic
6 white supremacist killed sikhs
5 islamic
5 islamic
5 black man killed white cops

And you can add Dylann Roof for 9 as that was 2015.

The four non-islamic attacks are also all lone wolf attacks so that's four people vs a global network.

Even though it covered it. Why does CNN cover up stories like the one you showed?

Interesting. So what’s the explanation for all this?

This is all both very funny and not a little sad. You first claim a news station (and others) are "covering up" a story despite them subsequently covering it and the story being widely available in other national outlets since it occurred. You then claim that the study provided by Rep will not cite incidents like Dylann Roof when it explicitly does and will include incidents like 9/11 when it doesn't. You go on to assert that they only get their results because the Boston Marathon is being compared to some letter bombs despite them saying that specifically excluding events like the Boston Marathon strengthens their results. Literally all your initial claims have been shown to be untrue.

To add to this you now make two broader claims - 1: that the results of the study failed to control for number of deaths and 2: that when drawing its conclusions the study failed to discern between lone wolf attacks and the fruits of global terror networks. Lets go to the tape:

1. And you needn't have gone further than the study's abstract

2. You had to look a bit further here (pg 26):

Now I'm sure you can eventually find some real weaknesses in this study's methodology and interpretation of the data, but that's not really the issue. What's most illuminating is that you move to dismiss the study based on outright fabrication of its content and only then move to more nuanced (but still largely incorrect) criticisms once the ineptitude of your initial responses are revealed.

If you are trying to get banned, you are doing everything right.

Dude ain't getting banned. Might be exiled for a week though.

Comfortably getting classified in the "posts are 100% lies" category though.

Trump fans are openly coordinating terror attacks on message boards, but some of them are chin incels and some are wrist incels so it's unfair to paint them as a singular terror network

USA #1.

Of course half of America wanted unfettered slavery in the US and everywhere else while the other half of the country was willing to compromise with just leaving the slavery status quo alone. But yeah America really fought hard to end slavery.

That all kinds of arguments could be made about substantial groups of Americans being slaves since black people could no longer be publically owned, is of no importance.

I am sure we will never see another major upheaval where one side of the country digs in extreme views, the other half capitulates and massively compromises and it is still not enough.

With the news of Jared and Ivanka using private communications/emails/apps let's give Fox credit for their current, huge headline on their homepage:

PRIVATE COMMS CHANNEL - Clinton, in newly revealed emails, discussed classified matters, secretive channel with Israel


EDIT: Also on there now - Country music star dies in gun accident during music video shoot

Does anyone know what's going on here?

Divide and conquer: Left/Right, Black/White, Female/Male, etc. Divide, divide, divide.

Laura and Dinesh are funning on themslefs by talking journalistic ethics?

Obviously they are two of the WOAT people. I was curious what the hell Dinesh means by "What happens to her? She is kicked out of journalism." The clip doesn't explain it.

Laura and Dinesh used to **** iirc