Skip to main content

The Covington Catholic high school study: "fake report"

The mainstream media is a fickle beast, especially in the 24-hour news era. Take the Covington Catholic high school controversy, where students from the Kentucky school, donned in MAGA gear, appeared to harass and mock a Native American veteran following a March to Life rally. The media reported it as such. Then video was released of a small group of black Hebrew Israelites throwing insults at both the students and Native Americans, which was believed to have started the series of events. So most in the media changed their narratives from "These kids are to blame" to "These black Hebrew Israelites are to blame." Some went the Swiss hippie route and decided to say, "Hey, man, all sides took a part in this, so like yeah..." The student at the front and center of the controversy, Nick Sandmann, hired legal representation to write him a refutation to the media's initial narrative, contending they and the before-mentioned Native American, Nathan Phillips, were wrong. Nathan Phillips fired back that Sandmann was wrong. Then came this, a CNN headline which reads, "Report finds no evidence of 'offensive or racist statements' by Kentucky students."

Mark this under "misleading headlines searching for a click," for the first paragraph of the article says this:

"An investigation into an encounter between Kentucky high school students and Native American activists has found 'no evidence of offensive or racist statements' by the students, according to a report posted on the Diocese of Covington website."

That's right; this study was concocted by the leaders of the school to which these very students attend. That'd be like the leaders of the tobacco industry conducting a study which suggests cigarettes aren't bad for your health. It'd be like Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association saying, "Through vigorous amounts of research, our reputable team of experts found that guns actually don't fire bullets, which means they can't kill people!" So no, no one in their right mind should take this "report" seriously. It's just another example of the Catholic church trying to avoid negative press and perception and at least partially save their oh-so-holy asses as a result.

Even beyond that, digging deeper into the report, just look at the headline again: "Report finds no evidence of 'offensive or racist statements' by Kentucky students." Offensive is a highly subjective term. Just about everything a person says or does could be construed by at least one person. What's offensive to one isn't necessarily offensive to another and vice versa. So when the authors of the report claim the students didn't utter any "offensive" commentary, my question is, "Offensive to whom?" Lastly, notice the other half of that claim - "racist statements." Most of the racism which was exhibited by the Covington Catholic students wasn't displayed via words, but through gestures. Many students mocked Mr. Phillips' song by attempting to sing along in an over-the-top fashion while doing the tomahawk chop.

So, ironically enough, while Donald Trump came out in defense of the Covington Catholic high school students and is notorious for labeling most media outlets as "fake news," this report defending these students is an actual example of "fake news." For those who don't believe that and fully buy into the Catholic school leaders' words, I have a river of sexual abuse cases to sell you

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/us/covington-catholic-high-school-report/index.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"