If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.
The entire event is on video. The boys are waiting for their bus. They are repeatedly insulted by a group of adult men who use racial and homophobic insults against the boys, who do not respond in kind but do talk with the adults harassing them. Into the fracas enters Phillips, who approaches the boys, and bangs a drum in the face of one boy. Most mainstream news outlets then smear the children as racists who surrounded and harassed Phillips without regard for the events on film.
If you want to describe this as a matter of different opinions, then I think you're basically in the camp of just disregarding reality and making up whatever is most pleasant to your perspective.
This is essentially what you're looking for: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwi...
The short story is that when news about the incident first emerged, it was lacking the context about the Black Hebrew Nationalists antagonizing the boys. Early coverage made it sound like the boys sought out Mr Phillips to antagonize him. When it turned out that he had inserted himself into the situation, rightly or wrongly, it changes a lot. This doesn't necessarily exonerate the teenagers--you might still find stuff to criticize about their behavior--but it does provide a more sympathetic context, one that was missing with the initial press coverage.
So yes, whatever your final takeaway, the initial coverage was incomplete and people did form and share very strong opinions based on that incomplete coverage. Once more information came out, many people changed their minds while others stuck by their initial takes. Had the coverage been more complete before people starting making opinions, we might have avoided a lot of unnecessary kerfuffle over this.
But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem.
> Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact
This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans" period.
“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”
The article is explicit. It notes that Phillips initiated contact because they were harassing another group. But it also makes it clear, with quotes, that he believes they began harassing him instead.
Now, if you want to say Phillips is lying, you can do that, but unless you do that, at least one of your articles does not support your contention.
See: https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.c...
No one here is even trying to advance narrative high school boys are angels, with a bit a of digging it's pretty easy to find things that Covington Catholic does may well deserve the level of public shaming that this story got.
However in this case, the entire narrative has been pretty widely disputed, Caitlin Flanagan does it much more elegantly than I could.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must...
As for the source, why not go to the original, like any responsible journalist should have, copy of the full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNyOD8FIQk
Feel free to tell me when you hear them chanting "Build a wall", I haven't heard it.
The first widely reported, and easily proven incorrect fact is that Nathan Phillips is a Vietnam Veteran, see fairly through coverage of that here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/native-elder-nathan-phillips...
So really you're asking me to believe the narrative of someone who is proven to be lying about his military service, with no corroborating video of his claims, which just seems a bit ludicrous.
edited: spelling
-- a young man wearing a self-assured smirk and a red “Make America Great Again”
++ a young man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat
-- More video shows Phillips wiping away tears in reaction to the harassment.
++ More video shows Phillips wiping away tears after the incident.
This would be less silly if what you were pretending is so obscure and nuanced was not actually as plain as day.
I took your invitation to reread, and only needed to go as far as the second paragraph: "In some shots, the teens appear to be shouting “build that wall, build that wall.”"
This is false. Not an opinion, not a narrative, a plainly false statement.
My "contradictory sources with at least the same level of journalistic respectability" is any of the videos of the event themselves, is that a credible enough source for you? The full-length video was available at the time of the writing of this article and Vox did not make any effort to verify what they wrote against it.
They lied, period. This is not that difficult to understand. Do try to keep up.
The words "appear to be" in one of the above quotes precisely indicates that this is a statement of opinion, and not a statement of fact. When we say "the wall is blue", we are talking about the color of the wall factually. When we say "the wall appears blue", we are talking about how someone sees the wall, which is a subjective observance; the wall may appear to be a color other than blue to someone else with a different pair of eyes.
At least one word, "is", refers to things as a matter of fact. Other words like "appears", "seems", or the sub-phrase "I think", are indicators that we're probably talking about a statement of opinion. This may be a useful rule to follow when reading news stories. I think it seems relevant here. (SwIdt?)
Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all.
Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.
I recommend against deleting unpopular comments. Editing in something like "Update: I disavow!" if you've changed your mind is harmless, but in general there's a benefit to treating public statements as a sort of permanent record.
This practice exposes people to potentially underappreciated viewpoints and allows others to track the development and popularity of ideas.
I have many poorly rated comments preserved here, but on balance I think people respect my personal commitment to the truth, however I see it. In the realm of public expression, it's honesty and integrity which matter most. Everybody is wrong sometimes; it's part of the process of discovering truth.
But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.
The kid did have an option to yield: getting on his knees and begging for forgiveness for the crime of appearing at an anti-abortion demonstration as a white Catholic male. Then the drummer (who is a 'professional protestor', by the way) would have had a more dramatic story to sell.
Instead, he smirked.
It really is not, further video evidence makes this a fact, not an opinion.
The Covington story was “privileged, white teenage, racist Trump supporters got in a confrontation.” However the facts had to be massaged in order to sell that fiction was what happened. We all know that was the intent of the media and to suggest the reporting was either factual or objective is nonsensical. It’s delusional to suggest that the media treats Trump supporters objectively. Look, for example how the New York Times classifies Joe Biden’s repeated sexual harassment as “tactile politics,” while anyone affiliated with Trump gets no such delicacy in headlines.
It’s absurd to suggest that the Covington story was anything except the media attempting to make those kids look like evil puppy-killers. The vile, racist comments of the Black Israelites on the scene were ignored for the most part and instead media talking heads spent hours analyzing the alleged “smirk” of the white kid with the MAGA hat.
There is a narrative and any reasonably intelligent person can clearly see it.
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
Perhaps. But the question of who approached who is a matter of fact. Initial reporting claimed the teenagers approached a group of Native Americans. The videos clarified that the Native Americans approached the teenagers.