Media Culpa? Michael Brown vs. Dillon Taylor

The advent of social media has completely transformed the news cycle. With instant dissemination through a national and global information network, local news now has the ability to instantly become national headline news, by being compelling enough to “go viral.” But then, with so many sensational stories across the United States, how does a story become national news?

Let’s suppose I tell you that a few days ago, a young man, apparently unarmed, was shot and killed by police as he was moving away from confrontation. Stop me if you’ve heard this story. Would you be surprised to note that this shooting occurred in Utah, and the name of the victim was NOT Michael Brown?

Every so often, coincidence comes along and lets slip the mask.

Let’s first touch on the tragic story of Michael Brown which is a local story gone viral national story, and is currently ongoing because of the public response (protests and rioting) and the subsequent city government response. (militarized police and armed confrontation with innocent citizens) This is the story of an apparently unarmed young black man who was shot and killed by police during some minor confrontation. News outlets have this story on a 24-hour cycle, journalists, media celebrities, prominent public figures, and decidedly unfamous “bloggers” are all throwing their opinions into the public arena via twitter, facebook, and a host of other modern media. All of this is understandable, as it is big news when police, who are tasked with protecting the citizenry, kill a young man who is unarmed.

Then why is it that you don’t know who Dillon Taylor is? The Salt Lake Tribune reports that a young man named Dillon Taylor was shot and killed by police in Salt Lake City, while apparently unarmed. This similarly tragic event happened just 2 days after the shooting of Michael Brown. As more facts come out, we may find that these stories are different. For now, however, the case of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Utah, is nearly identical to the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, with a few notable differences. One notable difference is that Michael Brown is black, and Dillon Taylor is white. The Michael Brown story went viral immediately and is now on a 24 hour news cycle following riots, and police response. The Dillon Taylor story is still a local story, garnering some small local demonstrations by friends and family.

The media – national journalists, prominent figures, and media celebrities, chose to report the Michael Brown story, immediately and continually, through traditional and social media. News outlets sent reporters to Ferguson to report on Michael Brown, the riots and protests, and the police response. And it is a grand, chaotic mess on a nationally reported scale. They have not chosen to report the Dillon Taylor story at all, even as a sidebar. (i.e. another apparently unarmed young man gunned down by police) Why?

I cannot answer that question.

But I can note that the Michael Brown story fits a current political narrative of systemic oppression of black people in the U.S. The common and oft-repeated tale of black victimhood is a career for many politicians and public figures re: the history of racism in America. I can note that the Reverend Al Sharpton, who makes a grand living of financial gain and influence from the divide between blacks and whites, has inserted himself firmly in the middle of the Michael Brown story. I note that in Ferguson, there have been riots and looting, and now confrontations between a now-militarized police and the local citizenry.

The correlation/causation dynamic in the Brown story is too complex to place any actual blame with the media for the escalation of events in Ferguson. But we can surmise that the anger and violent response of the people of Ferguson comes from a feeling that this happens far too often to blacks (and blacks alone) in this country. And we can wonder if that feeling stems from media decisions to promulgate stories that fit that narrative, rather than dispel it. And when events occur in such a way as to leave no doubt to the type of news that is reported on a national scale, we can notice.

And we can ask, “Who is Dillon Taylor?”

San Francisco liberals stand up and claim your Congresswoman. Please.

Or, at the very least, please explain to me how the intellectual left squares its view that democracy in the United States is constantly in jeopardy by capitalism and free-market greed, with its proposed solutions which continually tend toward a future goal of authoritarian fascism.

Think I’m going overboard here? With a nod to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal editorial board in his “Best of the Web” column, he highlights this article describing a movement by Democrats in Congress, endorsed by Congresswoman Pelosi, to effectively enable the government to strip away first amendment rights of all legal entities who are not “lone individuals.” So that you know I am not overreacting or quoting out of context, I have included the body of the amendment in question following this paragraph from Eugene Volokh’s weblog article here: (He apparently took it from the site of the evil idiots who actually think this is a good idea – click through to meet your fellow anti-Americans.)

The People's Rights Amendment

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulations as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.


Here is where I say that I would love to hear all you liberals defend this, but in fact, I really want nothing of the sort. If you think that this is a defensible action that deserves support and recognition, then you and I are not even in the same universe ideologically, and no rational discourse is possible. The wording of this “amendment” (shudder) alone is general enough to virtually give the government, which, by the way, frequently does NOT align its interests with yours, (no matter how nearsighted you get when your own self-identified party is in power) free reign to do whatever it pleases to any legally established entity at any time for any reason, including depriving of life, liberty, or property without due process.

I simply don’t understand how liberals continually want to give government more and more power over our lives. All of the most horrific and unimaginable crimes against humanity on the grand scale throughout history have been committed by the authoritarian rulers and governments of nations. Even corporations that wield massive influence and power are still checked by a democracy that elects its representatives. There is no check to an authoritarian government.

Obviously, this “amendment” will not become law, as fortunately we are not a country of complete idiots who want to cede all of our rights to some hypothetical benign autocratic governing body that knows what’s best, but it’s scary enough to me that the former Speaker of the House of Representatives (second in line for the presidency in the chain of succession!) thinks that this is a good idea. San Franciscans, your city is beautiful, but a majority of you are morons.

Liberal ideology and the "moment of accountability"

I haven't posted on this blog in three years, a byproduct of being the owner/manager/only-one-who-gives-a-shit of a small, but robust painting business for the last 7 years. By way of introduction, be warned that I am known to be a bit fanatical in my philosophical views on life, freedom, and happiness, and my right to the aforementioned, but will happily back up my ideas with hours and weeks of reasoned, rational discourse.

I have enormously strong opinions, backed by thousands of hours of developed critical thinking, and I love nothing more than to engage in a rational debate about the merits of my ideas on the only proper way to live and interact with other free-thinking individuals. (that's you)


I am constantly thinking about why it is that my life's philosophy is so far removed from mainstream liberal ideology. I amuse my free thinking hours reviewing the differences between the way I live and view life, and the way others who differ from me do, and occasionally will come up with what I feel are nuggets of opinion that seem to highlight and explain those differences.


The not-quite-revelation I had regarding the difference between conservative and liberal thought sparked as follows: When examining an event, one main identifying focus that describes an event is accountability. Accountability is a short way of describing to what, or to whom might the blame, or credit, for a particular event or situation be attributed?

Whenever an event or situation occurs that is or seems undesirable, we should like to understand why it happened so that it may be avoided in the future. A big part of understanding why, is to answer the question of accountability. In this way, the assignment of accountability for an event becomes the driving factor in the action taken following that event.


Regarding accountability, it occurred to me that liberals and conservatives (yes, labels are cumbersome, but also succinct) substantially differ in their approach to accountability, namely in what I have dubbed "the moment of accountability."

The moment of accountability deals with the rather fatalistic idea that all moments lead to successive moments, in a chain of events that might be described as destiny or perhaps, inevitability. e.g. You have to get into a car before you can have an accident, and if you hadn't gotten in the car, the accident would never have happened.

I am of the opinion that a defining characteristic of conservative thought is that it seems to hold close that accountability is (mostly) immediate, that if it happened and you did it, you are accountable. I also think that on the flip side of the coin, a defining characteristic of liberal thought is that accountability is rather not immediate, that there are underlying social factors that are typically responsible for outcomes much more so than what is immediately apparent.

As an example, if I take a gun and shoot a man, by conservative thought processes, I am immediately responsible for that action, and thus immediately accountable for his death. On the opposite hand, liberal thought acknowledges that I played a major role in his death, but starts to look elsewhere for the possibly true accountability. Why did I have a gun? Who allowed the gun to be present? Who sold me the gun? Who made the gun? Who made the bullets? What events in my background led me to believe that shooting another was acceptable or just, and more importantly, who or what is responsible for my having been raised in such an obviously disadvantaged situation?


Now you may think that this is an intellectually desirable way to look at the event to examine all of the possible causes in order to possibly identify some unknown culprits of accountability and then to be able to address the issue with a higher degree of accuracy. However, there is, it appears to me, a fatal flaw in this approach, which is this. When you do identify the accountable party, is it logic, convenience, or agenda that motivates your finding?

Allow me to explain with a simple analogy:
An event occurs wherein I accidentally knock over a glass of milk. In the world of conservative thought, I had the accident, and am thus accountable for the spilling of the milk. Simple, yes?

However, in the world of liberal thought, I might not be accountable at all! Why was the milk there, so precariously perched that it was inevitable that it be spilled? Who put it there? Who owned the glass of milk and irresponsibly placed it thus? Moreover, who made the milk? Who made the glass? Whose table is it? Who called the telephone and caused my arm to move? Why is milk even legal if it can be so easily spilled? There are literally infinite possibilities as to who or what is ultimately accountable for the culminating event of the spilled milk.


I am sure that by this point, those of you who self-identify as liberals are shaking your heads with the wonder of how stupid I am and what a simple analogy and no way would you lay accountability on anyone but the actual spiller of the milk. However, let me finally tie in my point to what I believe is an analogous explanation that most will see a level of truth in.


If you allow for the placement of accountability elsewhere but the "moment of accountability," you can effectively place "the blame" anywhere in time, because of the fatalistic nature of the chain of events. What is scary about this to me, is that not only can you lay the accountability in the chain of past events, (look to the previous example - who sold me the gun?) you can also lay accountability in the future, for arguably necessary steps that were not taken!

In this way, a liberal thinker might account a crime to a criminal's unfortunate childhood or circumstance, or to a failure of society to provide them with opportunity, thus relieving the criminal of the responsibility of a directly committed crime, while at the same time, holding a corporation or wealthy individual which has committed no direct crime, directly accountable for the same crime simply by having not done more to prevent such a disadvantaged circumstance, or worse, having actually caused it because of their greed! And if that seems farfetched, pick up a newspaper, and read the opinion pages. Often you will find these aligning viewpoints not only in the same paper, but in the same column.


In a world where you may place accountability as you see fit, according to what you may believe is just or righteous, accountability loses meaning. It becomes simply a tool, a highly political tool for highlighting an issue that you or anyone else in a position of public power, politician, media outlet, activist, or otherwise, feel needs attention.


And because accountability can "reasonably" be attributed anywhere in time based on a fatalistic chain of events, no one is ever proven wrong, and guilt is assigned based on the strongest elicited emotional response. Scary.


If you are still following this post, you probably have trouble falling asleep. However, since you have come this far - I crave rational disagreement, and would love for you to post a comment.

Reason, a worthy deity

take care o ye judge of man
when thou wouldst strike to hit the point home
with crafted false comparisons
that mock reason, that unbending deity

for a terrible end awaits
when man ventures to bend to will
what shape refus'd to bend
and, springing back, causes the aspiring destroyer to perish, instead

is not man, to man, much greater than a dinner fowl?
is not an unborn child, life?
one's endeavor to hold these together in the negative
requires just such destruction
thou would fain remove reason from man
and doing so, deprive him of the key to faculty

claim ye that this is reason anew
and declare morality obsolete
subject to new relativity
and usher in your age of new man

find me then not eager
to be counted as man, with you
rather, name me animal
let me choose to scrape and scrap in body aching
than wander in that dark headspace
groping for those scraps left by your whimsy

worry i do not, but wait
endure what come and more
ever praying to my god
for man can live in no other circumstance

reason is my light and darkness
and hammer yet, and anvil
with which I shape my life's mettle
and hone my righteous mind

The Russian side?

The current crisis between Georgia and Russia, involving the area
known as South Ossetia, has occupied much news coverage and inspired much heated debate lately. As usual, most of those involved in the debate have absolutely no idea of what actually has happened or is happening in the region, including myself. So I will not attempt to pretend that I know what has happened or is happening or should happen with this situation. Instead, I want to discuss matters of credibility from an international standpoint, and perhaps relate that to American politics and our credibility internationally, one of the hot topics of the day.

Let's begin with this article from the NY Times, written by Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of Russia, known for his apparent statesmanship in the destruction of the iron curtain, and subsequent collapse of the then communist Soviet Union under his rule:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

In summary, this is a piece that condemns the Georgian president of engineering this conflict with the Western news media in cahoots. No doubt Gorbachev's twentieth century fame as a civilized diplomat lends weight to the conclusion that Russia has been wronged, and that it is the Georgians, with the West's backing, who are solely responsible for the current atrocities. Having no real knowledge to support either position, my first instinct would normally be to give him the benefit of the doubt, and consider Russia smeared wrongly. (god knows we in the States endure that constantly from the international press)

However, I then look at Russia's track record. First, a couple of names come to mind. Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, because they have been in the news over the past year. Add to those the journalists killed since Putin came to power, many of whom adopted harshly critical stances toward the administration. The installation of "flunkie" Medvedev as president cast further suspicion on Putin's lack of democratic substance. Now look at Putin's policies, noting that over half of the Russian energy giant Gazprom is now state owned, that the energy sector seems to be undergoing similar "nationalization" and that even in private corporations, many high ranking government officials hold positions of corporate power in addition to retaining their governmental posts. While none of these is a direct indictment, there are certainly a lot of questionable events that occur in Russia, and point to a large government hand directing the course toward its own ends. Fair or not, when you're in the shit, you can't complain that people are not taking you at face value. What's at issue is not the accuracy of Gorbachev's statements regarding the current South Ossetian conflict, but rather this: Why does Russia continually find itself in the position of having to explain its actions?

At least in the States, dissenters are not persecuted and murdered. In fact, they even run for president.

Don't swallow everything you consume

So, apparently, Sony (the makers of playstation gaming consoles) and kids in western civilizations (being that no children outside of Europe and America own playstations) are responsible for the deaths of children in Congo who are forced to mine a metal used in the production of playstations (and many other electronic devices) by Rwandan military groups according to this article.


To summarize, when the playstation 2 launch in 2000 increased demand for this metal, coltan, which is processed into a powder called tantalum and used in a "wealth of western electronic devices including cell phones, computers and, of course, game consoles," (again being that no one outside of Europe or America uses these devices) the market price of coltan quintupled. This allegedly prompted "Rwandan military groups" (read: tyrannical assholes) and "western mining companies" to force prisoners and children to work the Congolese mines for hundreds of millions worth of the metal. Sony has since sworn off the use of tantalum aquired in the Congo.

Excerpts from this article:

"Kids in Congo were being sent down mines to die so that kids in Europe and America could kill imaginary aliens in their living rooms," said Ex-British Parliament Member Oona King.

(Powerful statement, that, if not for its being complete disingenuous bullshit)

Sony has since sworn off using tantalum acquired from the Congo, claiming that current builds of the PS2, PSP and PS3 consoles are sourced from a variety of mines in several different countries.

But according to researcher David Barouski, they're hardly off the hook.

"SONY's PlayStation 2 launch...was a big part of the huge increase in demand for coltan that began in early 1999," he explained. "SONY and other companies like it, have the benefit of plausible deniability, because the coltan ore trades hands so many times from when it is mined to when SONY gets a processed product, that a company often has no idea where the original coltan ore came from, and frankly don't care to know. But statistical analysis shows it to be nearly inconceivable that SONY made all its PlayStations without using Congolese coltan."

(So, Sony is now responsible for crimes in the Congo because it cannot know for sure whether a product it purchases came from there or not.)


This article stuck out for me as a target for this post, but there seems to be a common theme running through much of today's "journalism."

Why is the article written to sound as if Sony and "kids in Europe and America" (again, because outside these countries no one even knows what a playstation is, of course) are directly responsible for the deaths of Congolese children? Why the focus on western countries, specifically Europe and America, noting an anti-West attitude throughout the article? What, no Korean, Chinese or Japanese kids own playstations? And why is there absolutely no mention of the accountability of the military tyrant groups in Africa who are solely responsible for the outrages against humanity in the region? (hint: this "corporate crime" was uncovered by an activist. Why try to indict one of a thousand evil regimes for one of a thousand crimes when you can blame capitalist greed, large corporations, and your own country and make a name for yourself to show how progressive and thought-critical you are?)

What takes place in the above article, and in much of the journalism and ideals abound today is a sort of agenda-driven selective blame. With africa rife with strife and evil tyrants, one more story of "humanity crises caused by evil regime" is fodder. But shift the blame to all of western civilization and specifically a rampant, greed driven corporation in order to indict comfort, consumerism, and anyone who has had the blessing to not be born a mine-working Congolese child and... et voila! Now you're selling newspapers. Or upping digital readership, or furthering progressive agenda, or whatever. Guilt sells. Always has.

Ah, but people push agendas through news media all the time, what's the danger?

First, I suppose, that Journalism becomes strictly Editorialism, that a media with a vast idealistic agenda means you will no longer get to see all sides of an issue with clarity, that opposing media outlets become battling pulpits, and investigative journalism becomes little more than mud slinging politicking. Second, that the selection of blame is actually a deflection, that the main antagonistic party in the story gets off scot-free. So now you've demonized legitimate business, and pardoned murderous behavior. And an environment of selective blame, an environment that abolishes personal responsibility, (and with it, morality) is created and pervades every aspect of our society.

Take a look around you. Who is responsible for the thousands of loan defaults that created the "sub-prime mortgage crisis?" Easy, right? Not just because you know, but the answer is force fed to you all around you, reinforced by news media day after every day. Big Finance. Predatory Lenders. Greedy Bankers. Mindless, Soul-Sucking Corporations And The Asshole Billionaires That Run Them. But who's really responsible? When a borrower obtains a loan, the process is entirely voluntary. The terms are up front and the payment requirements are crystal clear. No coercion is involved. No threats are made. When the borrower defaults on that loan it is because he cannot fulfill the terms of the contract which he originally negotiated. Call me old fashioned, but that seems to me a strong shot of mea culpa. (with a nod to this guy) Of course, in this environment we've created of selective blame, our soon-to-be-ex homeowner need not take responsibility for his poor financial decision. I mean the poor guy will lose his house, causing instability in the rest of his life, wrecking his credit, his co-habitant will probably leave him. Why blame him? Hasn't he been through enough? And so we shall lay the accountability for this tragedy at the feet of that oh so easy target, our mindless, heartless big big finance corporation who exists solely to shit on the little guy.

Personal responsibility is not a mantle to grab when righteous, and shed when frail. All morality stems from an individual's responsibility for his or her actions and their consequences. When you allow this truth to be distorted, as in the above article, by shifting blame as it is convenient, you create a world of moral relativity, where truth no longer exists, only perspectives, and power lies in the hands of those with the loudest, most ubiquitous voices. Perhaps journalism was destined to this fate because of its inherent influence - the power of information is a subtle and seductive mistress. However, it is a power that requires your unquestioning belief to persist. When you exercise your right to actively seek truth, and form your own opinions, then do you keep journalism honest and then do you shift its rising tide back to the righteous informative.

Keep the power, and exercise your right to independent thought every minute of every day.