Irvine seen as epicenter of violence against Asian - will it impact sales?
- Thread starter OCtoSV
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I went to high school in Newport Beach in the 90s. The student body was more than 95% Caucasian. As an Asian-American, I definitely was made to feel like the "other". Combined with the normal bullshit of jr high / high school, it wasn't fun at all. I was jealous of my friends who went to places like Woodbridge and Uni that seemed more multiculturally accepting. When I took some classes at UC Irvine during my senior year of high school, it was like stepping into a different world, an absolute culture shock.
In retrospect, there were probably benefits as well. It was genuinely a good school academically due to the resources available to these upper-tier (socioeconomically) kids while still not feeling "competitive." I live in Irvine now, but I don't share your opinion of not wanting to live in less diverse places like Newport. Unless your neighbors all have Trump 2020 flags on their yachts, but I'm not rich enough (and too cheap even if I was rich enough) to imagine such a fate.
One of my closest friend is a political reporter.
One big thing I've learned through him and my own experience of helping Andrew Yang run for office is to be more skeptical of activists & media. (The woke Asian activists hate Andrew Yang)
Not saying they don't serve a purpose, but we all fall into this trap of thinking a certain group can speak for thousands or even millions of people.
Hyperbole has always existed in mainstream media. It has been made worse since the advent of people getting their news off social media. That said, in my 30+ years of consuming news media, I have never seen media so partisan and divided. In fact, I also happen to believe that media deserves a lot of credit for the fact that our nation is so divided. And yes, mainstream media has always conspired to present the news a certain way.
30 years ago, it was difficult to get alternate viewpoints other than what mainstream media provided. It didn't mean that legacy media didn't emphasize certain stories and omit others; but it was also a time when most journalists adhered to a certain standard of journalism. Corrections to articles were rare and were made prominently. There was media bias but not the tabloid journalism you see today.
Unfortunately for mainstream media, it is easy today for one to get opposing viewpoints to that of mainstream media. It is no longer as easy for mainstream media to control the conversation. That is why you are increasingly seeing censorship of opposing viewpoints. It is not that the opposing viewpoints are all wrong. In fact, some of the opposing viewpoints clearly point out the narratives mainstream media promotes.
Today, so many media outlets seem to have content decisions made by a new breed of journalist that is more intent on activism, promoting a certain narrative, than reporting the news. Last year, the New York Times made news when several old guard editors left (or were pushed out) due to disagreements on content between them and younger NYT staff. It started with Sen. Cotton's op-ed published in the NYT. The old guard believed in presenting opposing viewpoints while the new guard believes in censorship.
I've seen statistics from different sources showing that over 80% of journalists are registered democrats. In today's hyper partisan world, do you think that this affects the news you consume?
It's not nothing, but doesn't change anything in the grand scheme.
Legal proceedings takes months and years and usually get settled. And while it drags on, this fabrication becomes "news worthy" and generates more clicks and ad revenue.
Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, it won't change the already formed public opinion and more importantly won't change how news organizations operate.
It does matter. Because at least the company and CEO would get compensated for the lost revenue and damage reputation. Also, it sets a big precedent to news. That if they run with a story that they know is not true. Then they would get sued. I mean $1.6 billion is a lot of money.
Even if you assume they get the full 1.6 billion (which they won't), it's a small drop in the bucket.
Fox's revenue for the last quarter was over 4 billion dollars. They collected over 1.5 billion dollars last quarter just from affiliate fees from cable, satellite and online distributors.
Murdoch sold parts of 21st century fox in 2019 for 71 billion dollars.
1.6 billion is nothing to Fox and Murdoch
Is their insurance going to cover this? Or is their behavior negligent that the insurance does not have to cover the lawsuit? Haha
Another thing to consider some policies covers x amount and the rest the company might have to pay. (I do not know the coverage, but it is a reasonable assumption to make.)
It is not just $1.5 billion. Legal fees, sponsors that left (I do not know any that left) which is income.
irvine buyer
Active member
The media focus on Asian hate crimes serves to further the political and media narrative of white supremacy and what it's proponents claim is the greatest terrorism threat to the US. The implication is that most of the Asian hate crimes are committed by white people of a certain political ideology.
Attached is a chart showing the types of hate crimes per 100,000 population. Hate crimes against Jews has been steadily rising for the past few years but has not been getting the same attention from the mainstream media. This despite far more hate crimes against Jews than hate crimes against Asians. Certain elected officials in Congress as well as the media get a pass when they openly spew anti-sematic sentiment. Makes it seem like it is okay to bash Jews just as it with privileged white males. Identity politics at its best.
As an Asian, I'm not against this focus on Asian hate crimes but I think there is a fine line to toe. People who dislike Asians will not stop disliking Asians because the media or the general public shames them or casts them in a certain light. History is littered with examples of how targeting a group of people will actually cause that group to ultimately commit an atrocity. What I would not want to see one day is a mass shooting against Asians caused by this narrative of white people committing Asian hate crimes. If that were to happen, mainstream media would never take responsibility for what they caused and would be the first to say "I told you so". So many in media seem to care less about journalism and more about activism and narratives these days.
Attached is a chart showing the types of hate crimes per 100,000 population. Hate crimes against Jews has been steadily rising for the past few years but has not been getting the same attention from the mainstream media. This despite far more hate crimes against Jews than hate crimes against Asians. Certain elected officials in Congress as well as the media get a pass when they openly spew anti-sematic sentiment. Makes it seem like it is okay to bash Jews just as it with privileged white males. Identity politics at its best.
As an Asian, I'm not against this focus on Asian hate crimes but I think there is a fine line to toe. People who dislike Asians will not stop disliking Asians because the media or the general public shames them or casts them in a certain light. History is littered with examples of how targeting a group of people will actually cause that group to ultimately commit an atrocity. What I would not want to see one day is a mass shooting against Asians caused by this narrative of white people committing Asian hate crimes. If that were to happen, mainstream media would never take responsibility for what they caused and would be the first to say "I told you so". So many in media seem to care less about journalism and more about activism and narratives these days.
Attachments
Hugo Township
Active member
What a strange viewpoint. Do you believe there's a vast media conspiracy or something? Unless you are just talking about the standard bullshit of hyperbole, clickbait, and tabloid journalism.
No shit a variety of groups are the target of hate crimes.
No shit a variety of groups are the target of hate crimes.
Hugo Township
Active member
misme said:
I went to high school in Newport Beach in the 90s. The student body was more than 95% Caucasian. As an Asian-American, I definitely was made to feel like the "other". Combined with the normal bullshit of jr high / high school, it wasn't fun at all. I was jealous of my friends who went to places like Woodbridge and Uni that seemed more multiculturally accepting. When I took some classes at UC Irvine during my senior year of high school, it was like stepping into a different world, an absolute culture shock.
In retrospect, there were probably benefits as well. It was genuinely a good school academically due to the resources available to these upper-tier (socioeconomically) kids while still not feeling "competitive." I live in Irvine now, but I don't share your opinion of not wanting to live in less diverse places like Newport. Unless your neighbors all have Trump 2020 flags on their yachts, but I'm not rich enough (and too cheap even if I was rich enough) to imagine such a fate.
irvine buyer said:
One of my closest friend is a political reporter.
One big thing I've learned through him and my own experience of helping Andrew Yang run for office is to be more skeptical of activists & media. (The woke Asian activists hate Andrew Yang)
Not saying they don't serve a purpose, but we all fall into this trap of thinking a certain group can speak for thousands or even millions of people.
qwerty
Well-known member
Every race has their bad apples. When I was in my early 20s we were getting into an elevator in a parking structure with a couple of Asian guys who you could tell were drinking because their faces were red. It was probably 2am or so. One of the Asian guys looks at me and smiles and says hey Juan. Let?s just say he and his friend learned a tough lesson that night.
irvine buyer
Active member
HMart said:
Hyperbole has always existed in mainstream media. It has been made worse since the advent of people getting their news off social media. That said, in my 30+ years of consuming news media, I have never seen media so partisan and divided. In fact, I also happen to believe that media deserves a lot of credit for the fact that our nation is so divided. And yes, mainstream media has always conspired to present the news a certain way.
30 years ago, it was difficult to get alternate viewpoints other than what mainstream media provided. It didn't mean that legacy media didn't emphasize certain stories and omit others; but it was also a time when most journalists adhered to a certain standard of journalism. Corrections to articles were rare and were made prominently. There was media bias but not the tabloid journalism you see today.
Unfortunately for mainstream media, it is easy today for one to get opposing viewpoints to that of mainstream media. It is no longer as easy for mainstream media to control the conversation. That is why you are increasingly seeing censorship of opposing viewpoints. It is not that the opposing viewpoints are all wrong. In fact, some of the opposing viewpoints clearly point out the narratives mainstream media promotes.
Today, so many media outlets seem to have content decisions made by a new breed of journalist that is more intent on activism, promoting a certain narrative, than reporting the news. Last year, the New York Times made news when several old guard editors left (or were pushed out) due to disagreements on content between them and younger NYT staff. It started with Sen. Cotton's op-ed published in the NYT. The old guard believed in presenting opposing viewpoints while the new guard believes in censorship.
I've seen statistics from different sources showing that over 80% of journalists are registered democrats. In today's hyper partisan world, do you think that this affects the news you consume?
If you are pro capitalism, can you really blame Fox / MSNBC for figuring out the secret to profitability?
It's a business. They generate more profit by providing contents that catering to a smaller but more devout audience.
News were different 30 years ago not because human nature was different back then.
We just didn't have the tools we have today. Like big data feeding AI driven prediction models etc
Even with the rapid growth of alternative media, this trend is not reversing.
People in general don't care about caveats and nuances.
Haven't we all accepted (maybe unwilling) that proper policy discussion can be had over Twitter post Trump ?
It's a business. They generate more profit by providing contents that catering to a smaller but more devout audience.
News were different 30 years ago not because human nature was different back then.
We just didn't have the tools we have today. Like big data feeding AI driven prediction models etc
Even with the rapid growth of alternative media, this trend is not reversing.
People in general don't care about caveats and nuances.
Haven't we all accepted (maybe unwilling) that proper policy discussion can be had over Twitter post Trump ?
It is a business, but when a news company targets a company and their employees with unverifiable news. Then be ready to get sued. Lol
Dominion sues Fox News for $1.6 billion for an orchestrated defamatory campaign.
The legal world already new this and it was just a matter when they would file the lawsuit.
Dominion sues Fox News for $1.6 billion for an orchestrated defamatory campaign.
The legal world already new this and it was just a matter when they would file the lawsuit.
Kenkoko said:
irvine buyer
Active member
eyephone said:
Irvine: correct they settled lawsuits. But I do not think it was $1.6 billion dollars. Lol
But I think Fox News went above and beyond against Dominion.
False narrative is bad, but destroying a company with no evidence is even worst.
Again, without investigative reporting and gathering info from customers and employees about Wells Fargo. No one would of found out about Wells Fargo selling tactics. In which, Wells Fargo paid a big fine, the previous CEO and several key management left.
But I think Fox News went above and beyond against Dominion.
False narrative is bad, but destroying a company with no evidence is even worst.
Again, without investigative reporting and gathering info from customers and employees about Wells Fargo. No one would of found out about Wells Fargo selling tactics. In which, Wells Fargo paid a big fine, the previous CEO and several key management left.
irvine buyer said:
eyephone said:
It's not nothing, but doesn't change anything in the grand scheme.
Legal proceedings takes months and years and usually get settled. And while it drags on, this fabrication becomes "news worthy" and generates more clicks and ad revenue.
Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, it won't change the already formed public opinion and more importantly won't change how news organizations operate.
Kenkoko said:
It does matter. Because at least the company and CEO would get compensated for the lost revenue and damage reputation. Also, it sets a big precedent to news. That if they run with a story that they know is not true. Then they would get sued. I mean $1.6 billion is a lot of money.
eyephone said:
Even if you assume they get the full 1.6 billion (which they won't), it's a small drop in the bucket.
Fox's revenue for the last quarter was over 4 billion dollars. They collected over 1.5 billion dollars last quarter just from affiliate fees from cable, satellite and online distributors.
Murdoch sold parts of 21st century fox in 2019 for 71 billion dollars.
1.6 billion is nothing to Fox and Murdoch
Kenkoko said:
Is their insurance going to cover this? Or is their behavior negligent that the insurance does not have to cover the lawsuit? Haha
Another thing to consider some policies covers x amount and the rest the company might have to pay. (I do not know the coverage, but it is a reasonable assumption to make.)
It is not just $1.5 billion. Legal fees, sponsors that left (I do not know any that left) which is income.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
San Francisco schools oust vice president for ?harmful? tweets about Asians
https://nypost.com/2021/03/26/san-francisco-schools-oust-vice-president-for-harmful-tweets/
https://nypost.com/2021/03/26/san-francisco-schools-oust-vice-president-for-harmful-tweets/
As my previous friend that I met in a work conference. (Keep in mind the atmosphere is free hotel room, free meals and non alcoholic drinks throughout the day, and night time go out with the managers to the bar for free drinks. Layback and fun atmosphere) He would always say when we joke and goof around at the work conference. People are watching, that is clm bro.
I was like what in the world is clm? He told me, %u201CCareer limiting move.%u201D (like it limits the chance to advance or get promoted or might get fired lol) So companies have been doing this long before the cancel culture.
* I think now days people say, HR is watching with cameras. Lol
When the board looks at things it can be a toss up. Usually they ignore it or they recommend to fire the person. (Protect the brand)
I was like what in the world is clm? He told me, %u201CCareer limiting move.%u201D (like it limits the chance to advance or get promoted or might get fired lol) So companies have been doing this long before the cancel culture.
* I think now days people say, HR is watching with cameras. Lol
When the board looks at things it can be a toss up. Usually they ignore it or they recommend to fire the person. (Protect the brand)