Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 1:13 pm

In another shameless and brilliant bid for trackbacks, the Commissar has come up with the DemCom Deck of Cards for Operation Bloggi Freedom. Patterico is honored to have a position as the nine of clubs.


Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 1:03 pm

I have added a PayPal button to the site, for those of you who were dying to contribute, but didn’t know how. Every dollar spent goes towards keeping the Los Angeles Times Dog Trainer honest — certainly a worthy cause!


Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 12:28 pm

Many bloggers (among them PrestoPundit and the Ranting Prof) have mentioned this explanation from a New York Times editor about how to get your op-ed published in the Times. Among the advice he gives:

Among other things, we look for timeliness, ingenuity, strength of argument, freshness of opinion, clear writing and newsworthiness. Personal experiences and first-person narrative can be great, particularly when they’re in service to a larger idea. So is humor, when it’s funny.

What does the editor mean when he says “[a]mong other things”?

Well, as I reported on this blog a few days ago, it’s also important to remember that, if you are going to mock a crisis-ridden foreign country, make sure it’s a Latin American country, rather than an African country. Oh, and don’t use the word “Gee.”


Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 12:07 pm

PapaScott explains how Blogspotters can turn on their RSS feeds. If you don’t understand why this is important (I remember when I didn’t), you can read more about it here. Or, you can simply trust me: it’s important, if you want people to read your blog. (Via Jeff Jarvis.)


Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,Race — Patterico @ 9:13 am

Yesterday I noticed something interesting about this story in our local Dog Trainer. The story reported the 6-6 deadlock in the trial of Jeremy Morse — the white Inglewood police officer accused of using excessive force against black teenager Donovan Jackson. The story discussed how the case has had racial overtones, etc. — but didn’t report how many blacks were on this jury.

In the first trial, it was widely reported that there was only one black on the jury. I don’t know how many blacks were on this jury. But I will make one prediction with confidence: there was more than one black person on this hung jury.

How can I predict this with such confidence? Well, the Dog Trainer has a proud history of sensationalizing race issues, which has the effect of polarizing the community along racial lines. If the paper’s editors could sensationalize this second hung jury by pointing out that there were “no blacks” on the jury, or (like last time around) “only one black” — they would absolutely do so. I therefore conclude that there were at least two black jurors on the jury in this second trial. I guess it doesn’t sound as dramatic to say there were “only two blacks” or “only three blacks” — or however many there were.

The only hint in the story as to the racial makeup of the jury is in a quote from one of the jurors, who reported that the jurors’ decision was not racially motivated: “It wasn’t divided along racial lines at all . . . We want the community to know that it was never black and white.” My guess is that the juror would not have made that comment if there were no blacks on the jury. The comment further indicates that at least one black juror voted to acquit, and at least one non-black juror voted to convict.

I’ll continue to search for information on this. I’m sticking my neck out here, but I am confident I am right. I’ll provide an update if I can find any news outlet that was willing to provide this information. But I want to get my prediction out there, for dramatic effect. And if I turn out to be wrong, I’ll admit it.

UPDATE: The New York Times isn’t saying either.

UPDATE x2: The only thing I can find in the Washington Post is this brief blurb, which says nothing about the racial makeup of the jury.

UPDATE x3: The AP doesn’t report this information either.

UPDATE x4: The only thing I can find in the L.A. Daily News is this two-paragraph blurb which apparently derives from the same AP story I just mentioned.

UPDATE x5: Okay, I found something. Not surprisingly, I have been vindicated. A transcript of a CNN news alert says there were two black people on the jury. (This has been further confirmed by BoiFromTroy in the comments.) No word on how the two black jurors voted. If I learn that, I will provide another update.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2031 secs.