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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time
And you’re trying to argue that
“New club starts after school, kids have fun”
Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said? And you’re claiming I’m dishonest? Is this a joke?
Nah, I didn’t have to try very hard at all.
It was a completely inoffensive article that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims. I suspect this is because you know I’m right, but your ego is too fragile to admit it.
And you’re trying to argue that “New club starts after school, kids have fun” Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said?
Yes. Because that’s not what I said at all. Go read what I actually fucking said.
It was a completely inoffensive article
It wasn’t.
that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
I didn’t.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims.
Because it was a dishonest troll comment that misrepresented what I said. Just like this one is too. There’s nothing to challenge when all that you wrote was dishonest. And there’s no reason to treat you seriously when you’re just trolling.
Literally cut and paste it and you’re still pretending you didn’t say it. Lol you’re fucking nuts denying reality. It’s like when I argue with climate change deniers and trump cultists.
I also addressed your other point about giving a platform, by pointing out that the only story here is the controversy.
It’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s that we both understand at least part of your point is absolutely ridiculous, you’re just too fragile to admit it. So gaslight and and attack.
Isn’t the name of the club deliberately provocative though? The only reason you would call it the Satanic Club would be to make Christians mad. Seems like trolling to me. Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Is that provocative? Is that offensive? Would you say that the school’s evangelical “Good News Club” is provocative or trolling?
Calling is a Satan Club is “only to make Christians mad” but calling it a “Good News Club” is not trolling to make non-Christians mad? This says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Not like the wholesome Christian indoctrination clubs and Christian students who bully anyone who isn’t cishet and white. Thank goodness they’re in the school to show us the light.
I think you’re whoooshing the article.
Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
Indeed.
I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn’t push their opinion seems counterfactual.
I don’t see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That’s probably why we have different takes. You’re upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can’t interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn’t do that, so I’m glad you didn’t get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn’t have expected them to publish kids’ names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don’t agree with you that what the article does is simply “shining a light.” They’re helping them out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You could argue that the club members / organizer are the protesters that need their voices heard.
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.
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.
Except this is not what I said at all.
Nice try at a dishonest post though. Read what I actually wrote and try again.
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.
And you’re trying to argue that
Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said? And you’re claiming I’m dishonest? Is this a joke?
It was a completely inoffensive article that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims. I suspect this is because you know I’m right, but your ego is too fragile to admit it.
Yes. Because that’s not what I said at all. Go read what I actually fucking said.
It wasn’t.
I didn’t.
Because it was a dishonest troll comment that misrepresented what I said. Just like this one is too. There’s nothing to challenge when all that you wrote was dishonest. And there’s no reason to treat you seriously when you’re just trolling.
I literally cut and paste what you said and you’re trying to deny it. Lol this is bat shit crazy.
Removed by mod
Literally cut and paste it and you’re still pretending you didn’t say it. Lol you’re fucking nuts denying reality. It’s like when I argue with climate change deniers and trump cultists.
I also addressed your other point about giving a platform, by pointing out that the only story here is the controversy.
It’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s that we both understand at least part of your point is absolutely ridiculous, you’re just too fragile to admit it. So gaslight and and attack.
Removed by mod
Isn’t the name of the club deliberately provocative though? The only reason you would call it the Satanic Club would be to make Christians mad. Seems like trolling to me. Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Is it though?
“After School Satan Club”
Is that provocative? Is that offensive? Would you say that the school’s evangelical “Good News Club” is provocative or trolling?
Calling is a Satan Club is “only to make Christians mad” but calling it a “Good News Club” is not trolling to make non-Christians mad? This says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
Yeah, probably.
The ASS Club. Probably not an oversight.
Imagine how many lovely ads they can put up all over school. 🙄
So provocative.
Not like the wholesome Christian indoctrination clubs and Christian students who bully anyone who isn’t cishet and white. Thank goodness they’re in the school to show us the light.
I think you’re whoooshing the article. Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
when “one side” wants to take away everyone’s rights and burn down the planet, I think the “both sides” neutrality arguments should fuckin STOP
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
Why on earth are people so angry at this for simply reporting the facts? This comment section is fucking hilariously nuts right now. Lol
Indeed. I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn’t push their opinion seems counterfactual.
I don’t see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
That’s not neutral reporting.
Some people’s “giving a platform” is other people “shining a light on”.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That’s probably why we have different takes. You’re upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can’t interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn’t do that, so I’m glad you didn’t get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn’t have expected them to publish kids’ names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don’t agree with you that what the article does is simply “shining a light.” They’re helping them out.
They literally explained how it’s not neutral.
And I still think they are incorrect.