755
submitted 9 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] osarusan@kbin.social 213 points 9 months ago

What infuriates me about articles like this is that it really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time, here's everything they did and what they plan to do for the year, and here are some kids' reactions and quotes about the club.

Instead, it says the kids had "a great time" and then moves on to the protesters, offering them several paragraphs to spew their vile hate speech, repeating the garbage that their hate-filled signs say, and then even quoting two people. And then it follows that with basically an advertisement for "the Good News club, a Christian evangelical Bible club that meets before school hours."

It's a sign of how biased society is towards religion that an article about a non-theistic after school club gives half of the article to a handful of religious bigots to let them spew their hate speech and then promotes their own Christian school club.

[-] ObsidianNebula@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it's like. I've read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn't receive an article in a national publication because that's not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn't about the club being formed; it's about the backlash to the club being formed, and that's what they're going to focus on. I'm not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what's going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

I get where you're going with this, but I'm not following along.

Pointing out that there were protesters and explaining what they were doing there/why they were there is one thing. And that's important news. But this article went way way beyond that. They interviewed the protestors, put their names in the paper, and published their bigoted message along with it. They gave them fame and a platform, and helped them spout their hatred.

When there's a terrorist attack, responsible news agencies are careful to avoid giving unnecessary publicity to the terrorists, such as publishing their name and manifesto, and instead they focus on the victims. That's the attitude that should have been taken here. Mention the protestors, but don't platform them. Focus on the kids who are being harassed by these bigots, and show them in the positive light they deserve.

[-] nybble41@programming.dev -3 points 9 months ago

These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn't going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.

If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you're seeing an opinion piece, not news.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they're not violent terrorists, but they're closer to that than they are to debaters.

both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language

Neutral language? Are you kidding me??

This is not a debate. One side's position is "we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted." The other side's position is "you are evil and deserve to die." If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no "neutral language" for hate speech.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 5 points 9 months ago

That article sounds like a bunch of religious nuts making threats and calling parents that let their kids join an inclusive club instead of one of hate, bad parents. This reads like they 100% gave a platform to the nuts, instead of showing how the club overcame their hate.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

These are protesters

You could argue that the club members / organizer are the protesters that need their voices heard.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago

Lol Wtf is this?

The story is about the controversy surrounding the club. "New club starts after school, kids have fun" is a story that would only run in the schools newspaper. Outside of that it's a complete non story.

So of course they are going to report about what the people who are protesting this are saying about it.

Additionally, the "advertisment" was really just a clarification on the point by ASSC that they only go to schools where there is another religious club.

This is a very neutral article just reporting the facts, you had to try very hard to be offended by it.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

“New club starts after school, kids have fun”

Except this is not what I said at all.

Nice try at a dishonest post though. Read what I actually wrote and try again.

you had to try very hard to be offended by it.

Nah, I didn't have to try very hard at all. But clearly you put a lot of thought into being a troll. Hopefully you didn't hurt yourself.

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
755 points (98.1% liked)

News

23305 readers
3665 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS