Why are the mainstream media all to often disingenuous when it comes to 'social justice' issues?

[Caracus2k]

Well the 'progressive media' have really been excelling themselves at spreading FUD and just total bovine excrement of late with the gender 'pay' (more accurately earnings) gap figures coming out from companies in the UK of late.....

But I thought this article was a particularly egregious example of failing to explain why statistics present as they do

London's public workers face 'ethnicity pay gap' of up to 37%
Mayor vows action as study finds BME workers in police face ‘particularly stark’ divide

So they kick off with a nice anti police headline with the insinuation (from the headline and sub heading) that this gap is down to 'racism' right ...

And in other news....

London’s police force has made great strides in recruiting more black and ethnic minority officers and has redesigned its selection and leadership development processes and career paths. The changes enabled it to scoop this key prize at the Personnel Today Awards 2017. The runners-up also showed off plenty of innovative new policies and thinking in these areas.
Winner
Metropolitan Police Service
For the first time in the Met’s history it has more than 4,000 black and minority ethnic officers. It has also substantially increased the number of new police constable BAME recruits from 16% in 2014-15 to over 28% in 2015-16 and maintained this for 2016-17.

So pop quiz time.....

What happens to your minority ethnic pay (earnings) gap if you, over a relatively short period of time, recruit a lot more minority ethnic people who will necessarily almost universlly have to start at the lower ranks/ parts of the pay scale?

(yes I know that you can join the police as a direct entrant at inspector or superintendent ranks... But the numbers are very small and you have to have relevant management experience to apply)

And not forgetting that the 'progressive' media demands this sort of quick demographic change in pursuance of its Marxist ideals of supposed fairness

..... The answer of course is that by recruiting more ethnic minorities over a short period of time a company/organistation will actually make its 'minority ethnic pay (earnings) gap' worse as there will be more minority ethnic people necessarily occupying the lower echelons of the company proportionally then before!

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

* checks for use of the word "Marxist"

* has a sensible chuckle

 

[dowie]

And not forgetting that the 'progressive' media demands this sort of quick demographic change in pursuance of its Marxist ideals of supposed fairness

had to have a quick scan of the OP to check if Marxism had been mentioned

edit - damn, beaten by Mags...

 

[Caracus2k]

* checks for use of the word "Marxist"

* has a sensible chuckle

Well It's an accurate description of the ideology at work here.....

 

[Domi]

ok I will bite.

Why does the fire service in London not have the same problem as the police ?

I will happily take the argument that the police are trying to fix the problem and deserve credit for doing so but that does not change the fact that there is still a problem.

You might think it is disingenuous to report on this I happen to disagree and it is not as if the article does not give the police side of the story.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Muh Marxism

 

[Roar87]

Yeah this is why this form of media is bad, there's no discussion, no debate, you get one sided information with no opportunity to argue against the stream lined ideologically driven narrative. Social media must scare the hell out of the owners of main stream media.

 

[Caracus2k]

ok I will bite.

Why does the fire service in London not have the same problem as the police ?

I will happily take the argument that the police are trying to fix the problem and deserve credit for doing so but that does not change the fact that there is still a problem.

You might think it is disingenuous to report on this I happen to disagree and it is not as if the article does not give the police side of the story.

Without knowing more detail it would be hard to conclusively say.... But one reasons is likely to be that they (the fire brigade) haven't been engaged in a recent massive campaign to recruit new BAME candidates to the same degree as the police....

Another would be BAME candidates (particular the black ones) have historically been relecutant to join the police because of their own 'communities' which isn't the same for the fire brigade.

Another would be that the fire brigades pay scale/rank system is far 'flatter' then the police with fewer ranks .... So less dissparity pay wise between newer and older entrants

Fire brigade has 7 ranks in the met police that only takes you up to commander with five ranks still to go

 

[Domi]

or maybe the fire brigade has never had the same level of institutional racism the metropolitan police had.

 

[Caracus2k]

or maybe the fire brigade has never had the same level of institutional racism the metropolitan police had.

You should look up what that phase, as defined by the McPherson report, actually means....

But don't worry fed rubbish by the main stream media people read its easy to just say its down to racism right?

As I explained above.. by increasing their BAME recruitment the Met have made this pay gap worse!

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

had to have a quick scan of the OP to check if Marxism had been mentioned

edit - damn, beaten by Mags...

I've read most of the OP's posts and he's obviously a bright, fairly articulate chap. The Marxist crutch does him few favours and is intellectually lazy; the near constant repetition draws the audience to an almost whack-a-mole approach to anything he posts. I realise I might be projecting here and may have this wrong but hopefully it's useful feedback which can of course be completely disregarded, Caracus2k.

 

[UTT]

Can't see this type of story doing anything but further improve understanding and integration across different communities.

Fortunately it comes at a time when there is absolutely nothing else going on in the world that could be deemed anywhere near as important.

 

[Caracus2k]

I've read most of the OP's posts and he's obviously a bright, fairly articulate chap. The Marxist crutch does him few favours and is intellectually lazy; the near constant repetition draws the audience to an almost whack-a-mole approach to anything he posts. I realise I might be projecting here and may have this wrong but hopefully it's useful feedback which can of course be completely disregarded, Caracus2k.

I fully take on board the point and do try to bear in mind sayings about hammers and nails and tilting at windmills

Whether 'Marxist' is the correct label or the correct underlying ideology responsible I do definitely think that there is serious issues with the way a lot of data is presented to the public by the media.

The problem runs as follows

Some sort of inequality in distribution is observed..... i.e men, on aggregate, are paid more then women.... certain racial demographic are imprisoned at different rates etc etc

please note that inequality has a very different meaning to inequity despite them sounding very similar

inequality
ɪnɪˈkwɒlɪti/
noun
noun: inequality; plural noun: inequalities

1. difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.

inequity
ɪnˈɛkwɪti/
noun
noun: inequity; plural noun: inequities

1. lack of fairness or justice.

From this inequality groups are identified and are split into oppressed class(es) and an oppressor class(es) with the former comprising of those not faring so well (on average) and the latter those appearing (on average) to be getting the better outcomes


There is then a big leap made and this is one of the most important points ... the assumption is made that the inequality (a difference of outcome) is due to an inequity (a lack of fairness or justice) and that it is a systemic oppression that causes this perpetrated by the supposed oppressor classes against the oppressed.

Often no evidence is made to support the assertion that the inequality is due to a systemic oppression/ an inequity.... and normally the inequality is the sole evidence provided to support the alleged inequity

The final stage is that a 'radical' system is proposed to eliminate, by force, the inequality in the belief that this will get rid of inequity (i.e 'positive' discrimination, paying women more then men just for being women) of course these proposals actually, in practice, cause massive inequity


Some important points

- some inequality is down to inequity but this has to be shown and cannot be asserted without evidence to demonstrate its presence
- most inequalities have multiple variables which may well be a complicated mixture of things some that do represent inequities and some which do not
- very important... Humans are not born as blank slates ready to be imprinted by social constructs...... there are identifiable differences between different groups of humans ... i.e men are inherently stronger and more athletic then women on average, and men and women have different distributions of personality traits when viewed as groups.... These traits matter when it comes to looking at statistics and we should not be expecting there not to be inequalities in a system which is fair and just quite the opposite a free, just and fair system is one in which inequality is the expected outcome
- it is however important to remember that society as well as biology plays an important role in shaping how different groups may act

 

[FoxEye]

I've read most of the OP's posts and he's obviously a bright, fairly articulate chap. The Marxist crutch does him few favours and is intellectually lazy; the near constant repetition draws the audience to an almost whack-a-mole approach to anything he posts. I realise I might be projecting here and may have this wrong but hopefully it's useful feedback which can of course be completely disregarded, Caracus2k.

Whilst we're in "constructive criticism" territory... momentarily popping into a thread to deride and condescendingly "chuckle" to yourself - in a manner intended to disparage the thread originator, yet without commenting on any specific points raised - does not really constitute a meaningful contribution.

99% of your posts in other people's threads tend to be exactly this.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Whilst we're in "constructive criticism" territory... momentarily popping into a thread to deride and condescendingly "chuckle" to yourself - in a manner intended to disparage the thread originator, yet without commenting on any specific points raised - does not really constitute a meaningful contribution.

99% of your posts in other people's threads tend to be exactly this.

I can be an observer and occasional commentator without having an active role in threads I haven't made. I get your point but I don't think this is an unreasonable position to hold. Something for me to consider though so thank you (insert genuine smiley face here as I don't know how to do it without appearing flippant or worse, ironic, which I am not).

 

[robgmun]

I can be an observer and occasional commentator without having an active role in threads I haven't made. I get your point but I don't think this is an unreasonable position to hold. Something for me to consider though so thank you (insert genuine smiley face here as I don't know how to do it without appearing flippant or worse, ironic, which I am not).

Oh come on! You can't seriously be saying this is a big revelation to you? You already know that this is exactly what you do. That's why no one takes you seriously in any way

 

[LabR@t]

Social justice = ********

 

[dirtychinchilla]

* checks for use of the word "Marxist"

* has a sensible chuckle

I couldn't even read the stuff bolded and underlined. Made my head hurt. Skipped the whole thing.

 

[weringo]

OP you have provided two links to the Guardian whose viewpoint / political leanings are well known, similarly you could find hundreds of DM articles with similar nonsense written from the other side's perspective. Not saying you don't have a point regarding the media as a whole but I don't think the Guardian is the best example to evidence this.

 

[Orionaut]

"Media" is a business, it sells what sells best to maximize its profits. This is all one needs to know.....

(Bit like the school shootings thing in the US, The only significant factor that has changed in the US over the last 30 years is actually the media coverage.NOT Gun availability, NOT types of Guns, NOT nerds getting bullied, But the media circus As I have said elsewhere, Perhaps it isn't the Second amendment that is the big problem here, Perhaps it is really the First!)