Why Does Jack Johnson Get a Pass on Opposition while Marciano Does Not?

[travestyny]

There are many, not pointing out any individual here, who use anecdotal source material as factual. If the media today should teach us anything it should be that all anecdotal sources should be questioned and backed up with at the very least common sense.

Almost every major media source in the United States had their readers under the impression that Hillary was going to win the election... That is a perfect example and its not the first time! Truman's victory was a similar situation.

People who wrote about boxing were not concerned with accuracy, rather they were writers who embellished their narratives: Jack London is a perfect example of this. He was on the whole, a progressive man who believed in worker's rights, Unions, and animal rights...Yet was a rascist who called JOhnson the most absurd names London, the socialist working class hero was the main reason Jeffries, out of shape and out of the ring, felt obligated to fight Johnson.

I wish I had the power to convince otherwise intelligent people that the media is not in and of itself an accurate source.

1. We're talking about a direct quotation from Jack Dempsey himself reported in the New York Times.

2. That direct quotation was discussed in a subsequent article in the New York Times by Harry Wills' manager.

3. The response by Harry Wills' manager was then addressed by Jack Dempsey himself in a subsequent article in the New York Times.

In case you wanted to have some background on what exactly was being discussed here.

[Dempsey-Louis]

I wish I had the power to convince otherwise intelligent people that the media is not in and of itself an accurate source.

But who then would we listen to? We need a set of lies to agree upon or there would be no history.

Seriously, you said it well, apply a little common sense, and don't take any one source as gospel. You can weed the information and come close to a/the truth if you work hard enough, (and can hold your own biases in check).

Where you are aghast, I am amused (because it's hopeless): people love to use a single quote to conclude an absolute; it is just social media pretending to be historical study. When the Internet becomes all there is, maybe the truth will still be out there, but it will be drowned in a sea of misinformation.

[travestyny]

But who then would we listen to? We need a set of lies to agree upon or there would be no history.

Seriously, you said it well, apply a little common sense, and don't take any one source as gospel. You can weed the information and come close to a/the truth if you work hard enough, (and can hold your own biases in check).

Where you are aghast, I am amused (because it's hopeless): people love to use a single quote to conclude an absolute; it is just social media pretending to be historical study. When the Internet becomes all there is, maybe the truth will still be out there, but it will be drowned in a sea of misinformation.

Pardon my butting into your conversation...but for the record:


Do you believe that the quotation provided by the New York Times attributed to Dempsey, which had 2 follow up responses printed in the New York Times by Harry Wills' manager and by Dempsey himself, were forgeries?

[Dempsey-Louis]

Pardon my butting into your conversation...but for the record:


Do you believe that the quotation provided by the New York Times attributed to Dempsey, which had 2 follow up responses printed in the New York Times by Harry Wills' manager and by Dempsey himself, were forgeries?

I didn't stay with he argument after we last spoke, so I am not sure which articles you are referring to, but 'forgeries' certainly isn't the correct term. IF they are tarnished calling them 'yellow press' would be a better critique.

The larger point is that no one source of information ever gets you to the truth, it has to be an aggregate of information based on (hopefully collaborating and contradicting) multiple sources which brings the big picture together.

Nothing the NY Times prints is a forgery, nor is anything the NY Times prints ever the whole truth.

[travestyny]

I didn't stay with he argument after we last spoke, so I am not sure which articles you are referring to, but 'forgeries' certainly isn't the correct term. IF they are tarnished calling them 'yellow press' would be a better critique.

The larger point is that no one source of information ever gets you to the truth, it has to be an aggregate of information based on (hopefully collaborating and contradicting) multiple sources which brings the big picture together.

Nothing the NY Times prints is a forgery, nor is anything the NY Times prints ever the whole truth.

Ok. I guess it’s great that it was a quotation, that was followed up by two responses to it. Safe to say it was accurate.

[OctoberRed]

Nothing the NY Times prints is a forgery, nor is anything the NY Times prints ever the whole truth.

They did have a few issues over the last few decades with writers completely fabricating stories.

[Dempsey-Louis]

They did have a few issues over the last few decades with writers completely fabricating stories.

That's right, the black kid from an Ivy League school or something like that his writings were out and out fabrications; (LOL) I stand corrected. I only remember him, were there others too?

[travestyny]

That's right, the black kid from an Ivy League school or something like that his writings were out and out fabrications; (LOL) I stand corrected. I only remember him, were there others too?

I was a black kid from an Ivy League school! But that wasn’t me! Lol.

But cmon y’all. We are talking about blatantly making up quotations from famous people on situations that are so hotly contested that other famous people comment on the quotation. Clearly since Dempsey responded to Wills’ manager’s response to his original statement, this was not a fabrication.

Yet even Mojo claimed the quotation was so full of lies and so utterly stupid that it must be a fabrication. But it, and the responses to it, still appear in the New York Times archive in their original form 92 years later. Lol.

[billeau2]

1. We're talking about a direct quotation from Jack Dempsey himself reported in the New York Times.

2. That direct quotation was discussed in a subsequent article in the New York Times by Harry Wills' manager.

3. The response by Harry Wills' manager was then addressed by Jack Dempsey himself in a subsequent article in the New York Times.

In case you wanted to have some background on what exactly was being discussed here.

You have to look at the medium as a whole...it is not to invalidate the media entirely just to understand its limitations. Regarding second hand quotes, you are depending on someone quoting a source...Many times a quote is taken out of context, misstated, and what could be called "telephoned," as in if you ever played the game of telephone?

You have a circle of twenty people lets say...the more the merrier! You whisper something to the person next to you and so on it goes....until the last person in the circle says what was whispered and...it is usually not what the first person said!

That is why media is not looked at as a way to validate the truth of an event...It is a perspective and even so called objective media is hardly! Look at the media recently...Look at the election polls for example.

Look I happen to think Wiki is perhaps the single most fantastic thing to come out of the information age on the internet...It is collaberative, informative beyond the simple "____for dummies" explanations we find in books that deal with beginning info on a subject...perfect for an intelligent person who wants and can handle a decent amount of information...But I would never hang my hat on something Wiki says. The media imo is the same... It can often confirm something and when there is ironclad consistency regarding an event that speaks for itself...But no matter the quality of the media, it is not in and of itself to be trusted as the truth, even when proporting to speak for a primary source.

Don't take my word for it, look at how Historians confirm something, or scientists confirm something, etc. Want a great example? Martin Bernal "Black Athena." Bernal was faced with a brick wall of British trained Egyptologists who refused to admit Egypt was basically an African based empire. Bernal won that battle but in so doing had to show linguistic, archeological and contextual proof for his assertions...It took like five books, and an incredible amount of research.

There are things we know about fighters from that period. We certainly know they wrapped the hands to protect them and that many treatments were used...I would never claim otherwise. we even have some information on some of these treatments.

[Dempsey-Louis]

I was a black kid from an Ivy League school! But that wasn’t me! Lol.

But cmon y’all. We are talking about blatantly making up quotations from famous people on situations that are so hotly contested that other famous people comment on the quotation. Clearly since Dempsey responded to Wills’ manager’s response to his original statement, this was not a fabrication.

Yet even Mojo claimed the quotation was so full of lies and so utterly stupid that it must be a fabrication. But it, and the responses to it, still appear in the New York Times archive in their original form 92 years later. Lol.

Check out my new post under

Newspaper quotes can be wrong, here’s an example

I am curious of your response.