Search

Building upon French philosopher Michel Foucault’s analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, I argue that throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, the news media and resulting culture nurtured and reinforced the postcolonial narratives that associated Blackness with criminality. I analyze the national newspaper coverage for their narrative portrayal of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP). The national media and U.S. government targeted the BPP and Black Power politics to discredit them and the overall movement for Black Liberation. I argue that this media-state project only intensified during the 1970s and into the 1980s with the country’s turn to neoliberalism and several presidential administrations’ draconian policies that surveilled and punished Black Americans. The War on Drugs and soaring rates of mass incarceration set the stage for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The same project evolved to other BLM to maintain the white supremacist hierarchy in the contemporary United States.

Building upon French philosopher Michel Foucault’s analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, I argue that throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, the news media and resulting culture nurtured and reinforced the postcolonial narratives that associated Blackness with criminality. I analyze the national newspaper coverage for their narrative portrayal of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP). The national media and U.S. government targeted the BPP and Black Power politics to discredit them and the overall movement for Black Liberation. I argue that this media-state project only intensified during the 1970s and into the 1980s with the country’s turn to neoliberalism and several presidential administrations’ draconian policies that surveiled and punished Black Americans. The War on Drugs, and soaring rates of mass incarceration set the stage for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The same project evolved to other BLM to maintain the white supremacist hierarchy in the contemporary United States.

Experimental psychology is said to be having a reproducibility crisis, marked by a low rate of successful replication. Researchers attempting to respond to the problem lack a framework for consistently interpreting the results of statistical tests, as well as standards for judging the outcomes of replication studies. In this paper I introduce an error-statistical framework for addressing these issues. I demonstrate how the severity requirement (and the associated severity construal of test results) can be used to avoid fallacious inferences that are complicit in the perpetuation of unreliable results. Researchers, I argue, must probe for error beyond the statistical level if they want to support substantive hypotheses. I then suggest how severity reasoning can be used to address standing questions about the interpretation of replication results.