There's been countless studies done on the over-representation of minorities in the news for criminal activities in western countries.98fb said:
Malik's lawyer son cited by Law Society
- Thread starter PeterLongwood
- Start date
And why is that? Because they're committing more crimes proportionately, getting caught at a higher rate, or is it a big racist conspiracy perpetrated by the media?ericestro_88 said:There's been countless studies done on the over-representation of minorities in the news for criminal activities in western countries.
Well, since the studies found that minorities were being over-represented in the publication of criminal activity that implies they aren't committing more crimes proportionately.PeterLongwood said:And why is that? Because they're committing more crimes proportionately, getting caught at a higher rate, or is it a big racist conspiracy perpetrated by the media?
Although there are no concrete reasons given, there are numerous theories put forth by the authors.
I would suggest doing research into a psychology database and you can read the studies yourself and determine if it is a big racist conspiracy perpetrated by the media or some other reason.
ericestro_88 said:Well, since the studies found that minorities were being over-represented in the publication of criminal activity that implies they aren't committing more crimes proportionately.
Although there are no concrete reasons given, there are numerous theories put forth by the authors.
I would suggest doing research into a psychology database and you can read the studies yourself and determine if it is a big racist conspiracy perpetrated by the media or some other reason.
I guess we should have started with the first premise: since you referred to "countless studies" perhaps you would be so kind as to direct us to one or two of them, with a link? Then we could read them for ourselves. Thanks.
You have to have access to the databases where the studies are.PeterLongwood said:I guess we should have started with the first premise: since you referred to "countless studies" perhaps you would be so kind as to direct us to one or two of them, with a link? Then we could read them for ourselves. Thanks.
Unlike posters like jjinvan who prefer to use google for research, I prefer to use academic databases and find peer reviewed journals.
I suggest you subscribe to a database like PsycINFO.
Wouldn't google find these data bases as well?ericestro_88 said:You have to have access to the databases where the studies are.
Unlike posters like jjinvan who prefer to use google for research, I prefer to use academic databases and find peer reviewed journals.
I suggest you subscribe to a database like PsycINFO.
No, most of these articles cannot be found except through use of these databases. To access the database you have to pay a fee.athaire said:Wouldn't google find these data bases as well?
I still don't get it.
What support can you provide for this assertion? Is there nothing you can tell us about these countless studies? Have you actually read one? If so, when was it done, who did it, which news sources were reviewed? Is there anything at all you can offer in support of this bald assertion?ericestro_88 said:There's been countless studies done on the over-representation of minorities in the news for criminal activities in western countries.
Again, I suggest you sign up with a good psychology database that provides access to peer reviewed articles.PeterLongwood said:What support can you provide for this assertion? Is there nothing you can tell us about these countless studies? Have you actually read one? If so, when was it done, who did it, which news sources were reviewed? Is there anything at all you can offer in support of this bald assertion?
I could link quite a few studies but if you clicked the link it would just ask for your username and password.
As well, linking the studies would not only be a violation of the user agreement but would also be copyright infringement.
Likely, you can use google and find studies about the over-representation of minorities groups and reports of criminal activity. That is not a bald assertion. I've read studies from at least thirty years ago which found this link.
I took your suggestion and searched with google. Although I found links to numerous learned studies on topic, the general theme was that if minorities are portrayed in the media, they are more likely to be portrayed as victims or villians.ericestro_88 said:Likely, you can use google and find studies about the over-representation of minorities groups and reports of criminal activity. That is not a bald assertion. I've read studies from at least thirty years ago which found this link.
However, I found nothing to support your contention that the crimes of minorities are reported more frequently than the crimes of whites. Nothing. I just don't think this is true. It seems that it is the type of crime that influences the amount of media coverage: violent crimes get more coverage than property crimes, regardless of who commits them (white or not).
I've got access to all of them. Post the citations or STFU.ericestro_88 said:Again, I suggest you sign up with a good psychology database that provides access to peer reviewed articles.
I could link quite a few studies but if you clicked the link it would just ask for your username and password.
As well, linking the studies would not only be a violation of the user agreement but would also be copyright infringement.
Likely, you can use google and find studies about the over-representation of minorities groups and reports of criminal activity. That is not a bald assertion. I've read studies from at least thirty years ago which found this link.
Or, do you not know what a 'citation' is?
Ok, congrats, that's the stupidest statement I've read all week.ericestro_88 said:Well, since the studies found that minorities were being over-represented in the publication of criminal activity that implies they aren't committing more crimes proportionately.
Suppose blacks are 10% of the US population, but they are committing 30% of the violent crimes. Now suppose the media reports on violent crime are 60% about crimes committed by blacks. The media would clearly be over-representing the crimes committed by minorities, BUT, the minority would ALSO be committing more crimes proportionally.
The two have nothing to do with each other, twit.
I prefer to use google when people (like you) whine about links to articles.ericestro_88 said:You have to have access to the databases where the studies are.
Unlike posters like jjinvan who prefer to use google for research, I prefer to use academic databases and find peer reviewed journals.
I suggest you subscribe to a database like PsycINFO.
If you actually have been paying attention, there have been several times when I posted citations from peer reviewed journals.
the more you post, the dumber you prove yourself to be...
just anecdotal
But compare the amount of media coverage of Ellison or Pickton (tons) compared to the coverage of Malik Jr. (none). The difference is that the former (white) guys committed (or are being tried) for violence and Malik Jr. (EI) is on trial for dishonesty.
But compare the amount of media coverage of Ellison or Pickton (tons) compared to the coverage of Malik Jr. (none). The difference is that the former (white) guys committed (or are being tried) for violence and Malik Jr. (EI) is on trial for dishonesty.
Jjinvan there is really no need to be so hostile or call names. Although I understand what you are trying to say you are just having a little difficulty with logic and reading comprehension.jjinvan said:Ok, congrats, that's the stupidest statement I've read all week.
Suppose blacks are 10% of the US population, but they are committing 30% of the violent crimes. Now suppose the media reports on violent crime are 60% about crimes committed by blacks. The media would clearly be over-representing the crimes committed by minorities, BUT, the minority would ALSO be committing more crimes proportionally.
The two have nothing to do with each other, twit.
You were clearly confused by my statement. The implication is the studies which found the link would include the variable your hypothetical example tried to represent when it determined there were over-representations.
Edit: jjinvan, since you have access to PsychINFO, I'll PM you the links and you can read them yourself.
Last edited:
Still waiting for a citation to these 'so called studies' which you keep pulling results out of your ass from...ericestro_88 said:Jjinvan there is really no need to be so hostile or call names. Although I understand what you are trying to say you are just having a little difficulty with logic and reading comprehension.
You were clearly confused by my statement. The implication is the studies which found the link would include the variable your hypothetical example tried to represent when it determined there were over-representations.
Don't 'imply' or 'assume' provide the citation.
Here's a quick question. If we all have faith in our legal system, and that same legal system found Malik Sr not guilty, and the law says innocent until proven guilty, then why would anyone still have to pay for the defence cost. I think the RCMP and the prosecutors, along with politicians who pushed a case thru with little legal merit, for their own political agenda's, they should be held personally liable for a portion of the costs. That would prevent other cases like this from coming up without evidence and legal merit.
Furthermore, they were found not guilty by a Judge, not a jury, which makes the decision even more important. It was based on the rule of law, and the burden of proof not being met. not based on personal opinions. Either we accept the laws that govern us, or we agree with those who choose not to obey them by stating they are unjust.
Just my two cents.. Plus the case was sensationalized by kim bolan.. That women doesn't report on anything other than air india or bindi johal.. I think she may have had the hots for some of these steriod monkey dealers. who knows.. again just my rambling on and my two... make that three cents.
Furthermore, they were found not guilty by a Judge, not a jury, which makes the decision even more important. It was based on the rule of law, and the burden of proof not being met. not based on personal opinions. Either we accept the laws that govern us, or we agree with those who choose not to obey them by stating they are unjust.
Just my two cents.. Plus the case was sensationalized by kim bolan.. That women doesn't report on anything other than air india or bindi johal.. I think she may have had the hots for some of these steriod monkey dealers. who knows.. again just my rambling on and my two... make that three cents.
Im actually shocked she hasn't linked the picton trial to bindi johal yet, since the pickton farm was in close proximity to the Purewal blueberry farm, and he is from the same area in india as bindi, and once they attended a wedding together, that I think Ujjal Dosanjh might have been at, kim bolan needs a good f**k... plain and simple, but like us pooners, she too will have to pay for it..
Hmmm.. "past couple of decades", would lead the reader to to assume at least 2 decades.. But the liberals were only in power from 1993 until 2006. Only 13 years by my count. Plus the judge can only go by the law that is written in the books. You dont honestly believe that all the laws were re-written by the liberals in their 13 years in power./// do you??
