A recent "study" by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center entitled "Social Networks for Hate Speech: Commercial Talk Radio and New Media" (PDF) should be very familiar to any Canadian who closely followed the kangaroo court persecutions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.
This latest attempt to clamp down on the free speech of conservative Americans is nothing new, as this 1995 column of Charles Krauthammer illustrates. Anyone asserting that this latest "study" uses scientific methods to "prove" its assertions was clearly catatonic throughout the entire Climategate scandal.
The Leftist agenda at work here is anything but opaque. It's also painfully tiresome:
- Determine what conclusions you wish to come up with.
- Conduct a "study" that's dressed up with endless verbiage and statistical charts.
- Issue press releases to the Leftist MSM and blogosphere about there now being "scientific proof" that what conservatives say is hateful and might even lead to violence.
- Sit back and laugh while your political enemies are demonized.
When it comes to actual violence, the recent contrast in the coverage of the Aurora, Colorado shootings versus the minimal coverage of the Washington, DC shooting speaks volumes more than this "study" ever will. Waiting for a UCLA study to investigate why Leftist individuals lash out in violence is akin to this.
There's an old adage that if you set out to find fault in another, you probably will. Such appears to be the case with this "study" out of UCLA. There are some telltale examples:
- In the third paragraph of the Introduction, the authors imply a linkage between blogger Pamela Geller and the Norwegian mass-murderer, Anders Breivik: The impact of Geller’s and other U.S. blogs with an anti-Islam message came under question following the attacks by Anders Behring Breivik, who killed seventy-seven people in Norway in July 2011. The New York Times reported that Breivik had been “deeply influenced” by several blogs, including Jihad Watch, written by ardent anti-Islamist Robert Spencer, and Atlas Shrugs, written by Geller. A former CIA officer noted that while one cannot necessarily attribute the violence to these bloggers, “they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged” (Shane 2011, 7).
- A bit later on in the Introduction, a cause & effect linkage is further implied: Our intention is to generate knowledge about how some talk show hosts are, by virtue of their location in a social network, especially able to spread information and opinion and exert influence vis à vis ideological messages that target vulnerable groups. If a social network is active in propagating hate speech, the dynamic connections that constitute it may explain or contribute to an individual’s attitudes and behaviors, including the commission of hate crimes. Determining the structure of the social network by finding ties between the shows’ hosts and their guests, and between the guests and other individuals and organizations, enabled us to assess how the ideological alignments expressed by these ties support the cultivation and circulation of hate speech toward vulnerable groups.
- The closing paragraph of the Introduction reveals the true agenda of the authors: The current study had three objectives: (1) to develop a replicable model of analysis—a methodology—for quantifying ideological alignment within the social networks surrounding conservative commercial talk radio programs; (2) to record and analyze baseline data that can be used for future studies on media-based social networks; and (3) to integrate this study’s findings with two other CSRC studies focusing on hate speech in the media (one, the qualitative content analysis of hate speech described above; the other, an examination of how medical immunology technology can measure the physiological and psychological effects of hate speech commercial talk radio). In combination, the goal of these three studies is to establish correlations between hate speech in commercial talk radio and the execution of hate
crimes, if such correlations do in fact exist.
"the goal of these three studies is to establish correlations between hate speech in commercial talk radio and the execution of hate
crimes, if such correlations do in fact exist."
That's rich. Why not just state that the goal of these studies is to shut up anyone who disagrees with us and our view of the new world order ?
It makes me happy to think my tax dollars support these kinds of studies.
The phrase "hate speech" is one of the most successful nuggets of the modern left's political rhetoric.
The "Chicano movement" has been teaching for decades that large sections of the US are the ancestral homelands of Latinos that were stolen from Latinos and that Latinos should demand that a Latino homeland be carved out of several US states, something which would never happen without widespread political violence. So now a "Chicano Studies Research Center" is complaining that others are stoking violence with their rhetoric? Pot, kettle, black.
The left is reflecting pool whatever they blame others of is really a reflection of themselves. Ie.Tea Party gets permits cleans up. Occupoop well you get the point.
Fortunately for all concerned, when the Nazis and Stalin killed off huge numbers of their citizens, it wasn't violence...it was "Social Engineering". Boy those folks were lucky there was no violence.
Well obviously the Fairness Doctrine must be reinstated, and extended to all public media.
Nancy Pelosi will be thrilled.
First, correlation does not mean causation. I'll repeat it: Correlation does not mean causation. And again: Correlation does not mean causation.
Correlation and causation do not operate within a common infrastructure. They are separate entities.
If I pat the stone gargoyle before I enter the exam room, and pass the exam, it does not mean that my pat of that stone caused me to pass the exam.
If I listen to various sites and ALL media news and talk shows and blogs 'spread information', this does not cause my consequent activities.
A causal relation can only be considered if the agent orders me to commit violence and if I consider myself subject, ie, linked, to his orders. That is, the order would come from someone whom I consider as my authority.
Now, here's Barbara Boxer speaking to a Planned Parenthood luncheon yesterday:
“There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals,” Boxer said calling Akin’s comments a “direct outgrowth” of the extreme positions on abortion held by Republicans.
“Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney?” Boxer asked, “There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives; I don’t know what it is.”
Notice her selective opinions? Romney publicly rejected Akin's comments. Notice how Boxer ignores this event?
And notice how she inserts 'divorce'? Why?
Does she hate children?
ET, as a woman who hasn't drank the Leftist Kool-Aid, could you answer a question for me:
The "War Against Women" meme is coming at us too frequently these days to just be random. It appears to be orchestrated by the DNC and the Obama For America campaign. Is this narrative simply to assure his victory or is there something more going on?
Robert - I am assuming that it's part of the Obama gang tactic for his re-election.
I think the Obama gang have written off certain segments of the population: blue collar whites, rural 'old style America Christians', and small and medium businesses. They are focusing not on individuals which would require that they deal with issues to think about. They are focusing on groups which can be bribed as-a-group.
So, for the hispanic vote, Obama has the amnesty for the young brought in by their parents.
This, he hopes, will bring him the hispanic vote. And that includes illegal votes, for screening for citizenship seems to be as forbidden in the US as it is in Canada.
Then, there's the academic urban vote. For that, he's approved gay marriage. Even though a few years ago he was against it, but, heck, he was speaking to a different audience. Words, for Obama, don't refer to objective reality but to the desires of his audience.
Then, there's the massive public service. This includes teachers and he's talking now about education. Heh, it's not for the children, it's all about the teachers and their salaries, benefits and pension. And police, firemen and wow, that massive, massive unionized bureaucracy.
And, for women, he's got abortion, bashing the church to make them fund contraceptives.
He's got the black vote (he thinks) because he keeps bringing up racism.
And he's after the populist young vote. For that, he goes on to the entertainment shows and talks about his favourite colours and foods.
These identity blocs are, according to the Obama gang, the basis for his re-election.
As for funding, Obama is deeply into corrupt cronyism. He rejected the Keystone Pipeline because Buffet transports oil instead by his own trains and trucks.
He shut down oil drilling off the Gulf Coast and gave several billion to Brazil, because Soros is invested in that area.
His use of taxpayer funding for solar etc, is also all about funding for him, as is his support of Hollywood and the public unions.
Now, what were you thinking of, instead of my suggestion that he's after the 'feminists' and their vote?
ET said: "First, correlation does not mean causation."
Sure does! Just read pretty near -anything- in the medical, psych or sociology literature. All I ever see is these sorry hacks claiming correlation equals causation.
One would almost think they didn't know the difference, except I took the same stats courses they did, so I'm quite certain they know. Making it malice, not incompetence.
I've been pointing and laughing at these pernicious @$$h0le$ for so long I'm really starting to consider pointing and HITTING as a viable alternative. Guy publishes another pack of lies in a journal and gets slapped upside his head at every conference, that might slow him up a tad.
As to this particular pack of lies, I will grant the authors that the advent of Conservative talk radio does seem to have occurred at roughly the same time as an upswing in LEFTISTS going postal in the USA and abroad.
I attribute this less to talk radio and more to Lefties being sore losers. I have exactly as much evidence for my contention as they do for theirs... zippo. I should get a TIDES grant and write a paper on it for JAMA, I could use a new swimming pool.
Never forget that any university department named "_____ Studies" is guaranteed to be 100% bullshit.
The whole rationale for creating such departments is to create academic sinecures for Leftists too incompetent to hold down a barista job at $tarbucks.
" that this latest "study" uses scientific methods to "prove" its assertions"
reminds me of how the leftoid progressives did the same thing to justify Eugenics in the 1930's.
Not much has changed in 80 years.
Since the study came from the Chicano Studies Research Center, I assume that it was written on a wall, using spray paint.
It's called projection....
When the lefites refer to a war on women...it's because they are waging it.
Now that was just simply applying observation of their acts and deeds....which are the direct opposite of their stated goals.
But it's true!
Only in the sense that the right-wing talk shows actually have listeners, and since the listeners are humans, humans can cause violence.
The left-wing talkers don't propagate violence since there are no listeners to cause any violence.
It's always amusing when Chicanos start pointing fingers about who's getting violent.
There's an interesting article, 'Abortion and the Gender Gap' at the National Review.
Essentially he's saying that there is really no gender gap between pro-choice and pro-life. The key set of the population in favour of abortion is between 18-34, and only by a minimal ratio of plus 2.
So, despite Maureen Dowd's vicious and ignorant column against Ryan, whom she links to Akin,
"a Taliban creed — the evermore antediluvian, anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-gay conservative core. Amiable in khakis and polo shirts, Ryan is the perfect modern leader to rally medieval Republicans who believe that Adam and Eve cavorted with dinosaurs."
..according to the data, not to the leftist media, there is little to debate about abortion. You either accept it or you don't. It doesn't define why there's a base of women who are Democrats.
I'd suggest that the women who are Democrats fall into the sets, as I've outlined in my reply to Robert that is still locked up in the spam prison, of the Basic Democratic Base.
These are the single parents among the black community. The demise of the family means that parenting becomes confined to women, and to women who are heavily dependent on social services, food stamps, welfare.
These are the professionals, such as the teachers, the medical support staff, the universities,the public service, who are funded totally and with great benefits, by the government.
You don't find many women in small and medium businesses, and Obama ignores this set of the economy, ie, he ignores and harms small and medium businesses. He favours the public service unions.
So, the gender gap is economic. Not due to abortion policies. It's economic policies which have set up single parent families dependent on government and a massive public service that heavily employs women.
What a joke. Compare please OWS rallies to Tea Party events.
It becomes obvious who the vicious violence ridden people truly are.
Look at any Muslim rally, that is supported by Unions.
It is standard modus operandi of leftist organisations to accuse conservatives of actions which they themselves are carrying out, or which to engage in.
This is a case in point.
ET said: "First, correlation does not mean causation."
But , but , but ET, I thought we were all products of our environment ?
Ratt, no, you misunderstand ecological adaptation.
We, who have the capacity of reason, adapt to the realities of our environment. The environment certainly doesn't produce us! We have the capacity to acknowledge the perimeters and limits of the environment..and we adapt.
So, if we move into an area with rivers but little rainfall, we use our reason and adapt to its realities. We build irrigation channels and dams.
If we move from that river area into an environment that has seasonal rainfall, we adapt, and grow crops that function within that type of water production, eg, grain crops.
If we are living in an area with rich soil, we can plough it; if it's thin soil, we'd better be careful or we can generate huge dust storms.
If we are living in San Francisco, we don't build homes with basements as we do in Montreal. If we are living in San Francisco, we don't build skyscrapers totally made out of glass; we acknoweldge the realities of earthquakes.
If you were to do some research, Ratt, you'd find that pre-industrial societies adapted to the realities of their environment in very intelligent ways.
Attempting a vague or causally unrelated correlation and then implying causation is a favourite tactic of the P.C. crowd.
It is a pre-scientific, animist or superstitious form of "reasoning".
The classic case is for them to correlate firearms ownership and homicide and then blame the U.S. 2nd Amendment. When Prof. John Lott examined the statistics, he found that 70% of homicides occurred in 3% of the municipal districts(counties).
He also found that confrontational crime decreased after the introduction of concealed carry permit laws were introduced.
Prof. Gary Kleck noted that generally speaking firearms are a rural phenomena and crime is an urban one. There is no correlation between simple possession of firearms and violent crime.
The reason gun control is a classic case of animist reasoning in the U.S. is that blacks living a drug/gangster lifestyle in urban ghettos have extremely high rates of homicide as perpetrators and victims. It's a lifestyle or cultural choice and a bad one.
To blame an inanimate object is an attempt to shield the individuals and communities from taking responsibility for their bad choices.
Every P.C. slander campaign has some variation of this theme.
The best antidote to animistic reasoning is the scientific method. Talk Shows and popular blogosphere site are viewed as threatening because all ideas can be challenged in those formats.
Robert Spencer is a scholar. He references everything he writes. He explains Islamist reasoning from it's origins in the Koran, the Hadith and orthodox Sharia legal opinion. He does this skillfully in a manner that those raised in Judeo-Christian societies can understand.
He and a host of others(Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Bridget Gabriel, Gert Wilders, Fijordman, Salim Mansur, Tarek Fatah et al) argue that "Stealth Jihad"(colonization by intimidation via political correctness) is exposed by free public debate of the issues.
Western Civilization will endure as long as we hold to our values and traditions, if we don't it won't.
That is hilarious -- there are 24 instances of the word "hate" in the document (not including the title), 10 of which occur in the introduction, 1 in the conclusion, and 13 in the footnotes. NOWHERE in the methodology / analysis section of this "research" is there a reference to hate speech, or evidence thereof. Yet that is the entire conclusion of the paper (and the title, even).
This can't be ridiculed enough.
When the conclusion is written before the research there are often problems.
Lefty logic:
Lefty "I hate people who I disagree with."
Lefty "You disagree with me."
Lefty "You must hate me."
Lefty Logic Says Disagreement = Hate
Therefore: Spreading Disagreement = Spreading Hate
Speach that Disagrees = Speach that Hates
Just another reasom why Leftards are Wrong About Everything.............
I went through the 34 pages.
My conclusion is that they have proved that 'Talk Radio' appeals to those with a conservative viewpoint and the guests and hosts also have a conservative viewpoint,and most are 'white' people.
How this actually links to 'hate' speech and acts of violence,I couldn't really figure out.But man,they have some really neat graphs and talk about nodes an awful lot,therefore their conclusions must be accurate.
Is this along the same lines as this "study" purporting to show that conservatives are mentally deficient racists?
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full
Liberals/leftists will try to quantify their bullcrap because it looks better, not because it's true. Even wiping away a thin layer of dust will expose that.
The point that "correlation does not mean causation" should be learned by the folks who claim that poverty and ill health often go together.
There is a disturbing trend toward official silencing of dissenting opinion in the US right now, A FOI report issued by a major right of center syndicated radio program reveals that the department of Homeland Security has many right of center media outlets and personalities in its sights.
Further info in the FOI request revealed that the government considered criticism of its security apperatus to be borderline sedition. Can the arrests be far off? Will they "disappear" Rush or Savage or WND?
Totalitarian regimes all around the world struggle to control discourse amongst the citizenry. Russia, China and Saudia Arabia, take your pick.
What is laughable in the USA is that the left is regularly exposed by talk radio for what they are. Morons. Talk radio and the internet empowers citizens by making their opinions part of a community of thought whereas in the past their thinking was often restricted to family and friends. This 'wider' community can actually result in 'action'. What a novel thought.
Traditionally the 'strength' of the left was their continued exposure in the MSM of their current 'thoughts'. Whenever they were exposed they simply moved on to the next issue. To a degree talk radio and the internet can hold them accountable which of course the MSM rarely ever does. No wonder they feel threatened. Seriously folks, don't you think Barack hasn't already had the convo about ditching Biden after the internet assembled his past video indescretions.
In Canada we have the laughable extravaganza of Jack Layton. Our MSM media has done everything but mumify the guy for public display. It does not change the reality of who he actually was and that most thinking Canadians have written him off long ago. Charles Adler and the internet obviously have to be controlled.
Conservative talk radio dominates the Media War for people’s minds.
The leftist rags have been promoting themselves as “Mainstream America” for a long time and it’s fallen apart. No one listens to CNN, MSNBC etcetera anymore. Their ratings are in the toilet. The BIG unmentionable ratings flow from Conservative talk radio, and “alternative” media. SDA is an example.
The Liberal Progressive left is reacting to loosing this information war violently. They have always been the manipulative minority; the sleeping conservative mainstream giant is waking up.
Conservative Talk Radio DOES Propagate Violence!
From the left.
The left will use violence against anyone not following thier cult of crazy.