> I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan.
No, my problem is your presumption - even here - that I am brainwashed when we were having a logical, rational conversation. I'm incredibly disappointed in you and I really hope you change your tune. This isn't what I expect from you, honestly.
I do think that you're watching a lot of left leaning media and that you're being nudged to think a certain way.
Let's not go so far as to claim "brainwash". You can prove me wrong immediately by supplying me with an answer.
I'm not disappointed in you, but I will be if you can't step back and assess yourself critically. I do it all the time. That's why I don't care about "not towing the line" for the left; while being a dyed in the wool lefty. (at least by UK standards).
The problem isn't the question - which I have answered you on elsewhere - it's that you're not engaging from a place of curiosity and understanding. This isn't how I know you to be and it's really quite sad. (I also don't watch any news media - on YouTube or TV.)
You ignored the bulk of what I wrote, and responded with a one-sentence question, and then went on to tell me that I only have these beliefs because my propagandists want it to be so. This isn't knowable and it's a gross accusation I haven't made about you, despite how easy it is to make.
But it seems, you haven't accused me of being wrong, I didn't engage with the bulk of your comment because it's completely irrelevant and factually inaccurate in many places, so there's no point in going down the path of arguing details when there's a clear and obvious double standard that we could talk about instead - one that gets to the meat of the issue- if it's not newsworthy as you claimed.
So yeah, I think we're done here. Clearly you're not able to reconcile these situations, and to be clear: you haven't answered me like you claimed.
All that has been proven here today is that you cannot think impartially across political lines at things on a human level.
I am disappointed, yes - this is a feeling, attributed to me. What you did is disgusting - not you, please don't warp words. Where is the name calling?
Yes, we're done here. You are criticizing me for not answering a question - which I answered, off HN - when you ignored the bulk of what I wrote. Your casual dismissal here doesn't resolve that.
I think you're still missing the main point, and the Daniel Penny case perfectly illustrates it.
You're arguing that statistically, a number of deaths from random attacks or involving mental illness occur every day, which is true for a country the size of the US. But newsworthiness is not based on raw numbers; it's based on narrative friction.
The Daniel Penny case became a national flashpoint not because a man died, but because it created a political crisis for the media and political establishment. The victim was Black, the assailant was a white former Marine, and the incident raised questions about public safety and vigilantism in a major Democratic city. This was a story that fit the national, race-and-politics-driven script, so it received instant, wall-to-wall coverage, and a $2.9 million legal defense fund was raised internationally.
The Iryna Zarutska case created a different kind of political crisis; one that did not fit the pre-approved progressive script and was potentially "toxic" for the establishment's narrative (an innocent white refugee killed by a Black man who reportedly made a racist remark). This is why the coverage was perceived to be slow-walked.
Both cases became newsworthy because of their political utility or lack thereof. My initial argument stands: the fury over the Zarutska case was about the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad. The media's visible selectivity is precisely why people are driven to "untrustworthy" sources in the first place.
> My initial argument stands: the fury over the Zarutska case was about the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad. The media's visible selectivity is precisely why people are driven to "untrustworthy" sources in the first place.
Your initial argument was actually:
> Another alternative could be similar to what happened in the US with Iryna Zarutska: whereby because it might inflame racial tensions and divisions it is intentionally downplayed.
> Iryna Zarutska’s murder was objectively newsworthy for reasons that go beyond the sheer volume of U.S. homicides
I agree with your new argument - that was indeed what the fury was over ("the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative".) The disagreement was over whether there was an actual (coordinated?) attempt to downplay a narrative.
That's a very precise reading of my argument, and you're right to point out the subtle shift in focus. I agree completely that the fury was over the perceived attempt to downplay the narrative, which means we now agree on the symptom of the problem.
The disagreement now is over the existence of an actual coordinated attempt to downplay the story. Here's why I think that question doesn't even need a leaked memo to be proven, (which is key to understanding why people stop trusting the media).
Traditional journalism operates using shared professional standards called news values[0]; things like Conflict, Prominence, Unusualness, and Human Interest. The Zarutska story was loaded with these: an innocent Ukrainian refugee killed by random, violent crime on public transit. It's an international story of "broken sanctuary" and obvious tragedy. If this had happened in the UK you wouldn't question why it would be international news I would guess?
The media's initial, noticeable hesitation on this high-value story, while simultaneously giving instant (and this is the key), massive coverage to the Daniel Penny incident (which also happened on public transit and also involved mental health issues), is precisely what creates the perception of visible selectivity.
It doesn't take a secret meeting for editors to collectively know which stories fit their organisational or political narrative best and which ones are "toxic." They simply apply the news values inconsistently. The public observes this difference in speed, framing, and resource allocation. They conclude that the news isn't being chosen based on objective newsworthiness, but on political utility. That is the mechanism that drives people away from traditional sources and toward the very "untrustworthy" alternatives that promise to cover the stories the mainstream leaves behind.
No, my problem is your presumption - even here - that I am brainwashed when we were having a logical, rational conversation. I'm incredibly disappointed in you and I really hope you change your tune. This isn't what I expect from you, honestly.