In a delicious piece of "gotcha" reporting (of the very best kind), Kyle Rogers exposes the disengenous hive-mind of the media establishment when it comes to their (non-)reportage of Black-on-White violent crime:
www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks
Rogers has pursued this issue indefatigably of late, naming names and exposing rampant bad faith and glaring double standards in the process. In this article, however, we witness him ambushing one particularly dodgy and dishonest scribbler with incisive questions that leave the hapless man squirming, sweating, and desperately defensive. It's a brilliant and beautiful moment of guerrilla journalism, which really needs to be read to be appreciated.
If the attitude of this Star Ledger reporter in question were an isolated case, this story would be of no real account. But as Rogers showcases in this and other articles at the Examiner, most media outlets share his perspective, whether they admit it or not. When Blacks beat up, rape, or murder Whites, race is never discussed (in "respectable" journals) as a possible motivation for the acts. As Rogers convincingly shows -- and as we really knew anyway -- race isn't discussed in such cases, not because race is irrelevant, but because discussing race in such cases might lead to White people thinking unkind or unflattering things about Black people!
Of course, it goes without saying that no such scruples attend the reportage of the (far more rare) cases of victimization of Blacks by Whites, even if the framing of these stories is misleading or patently false. Thus, if Blacks hear on the news that a "White" man like George Zimmerman shoots and kills an "unarmed" Black kid like Trayvon Martin "for no good reason" in Florida, media types are in no way to blame for the mob violence against innocent White passerby that follows in the wake of such inflammatory insinuations.
In essence, if a White (or a pseudo-White, in Zimmerman's case) allegedly perpetrates a crime against a Black, then race cannot possibly be discussed enough -- the perpetrator must be construed as a "hate-criminal," and if such patently biased coverage leads to riots and mayhem, then so be it: let truth prevail though the heavens fall! But should the alleged criminal be Black, and the victim White, and the motivations clearly linked to racial hatred... well, it would just be gauche to discuss the matter too much, if at all.
Get it? Me neither.
www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks
Rogers has pursued this issue indefatigably of late, naming names and exposing rampant bad faith and glaring double standards in the process. In this article, however, we witness him ambushing one particularly dodgy and dishonest scribbler with incisive questions that leave the hapless man squirming, sweating, and desperately defensive. It's a brilliant and beautiful moment of guerrilla journalism, which really needs to be read to be appreciated.
If the attitude of this Star Ledger reporter in question were an isolated case, this story would be of no real account. But as Rogers showcases in this and other articles at the Examiner, most media outlets share his perspective, whether they admit it or not. When Blacks beat up, rape, or murder Whites, race is never discussed (in "respectable" journals) as a possible motivation for the acts. As Rogers convincingly shows -- and as we really knew anyway -- race isn't discussed in such cases, not because race is irrelevant, but because discussing race in such cases might lead to White people thinking unkind or unflattering things about Black people!
Of course, it goes without saying that no such scruples attend the reportage of the (far more rare) cases of victimization of Blacks by Whites, even if the framing of these stories is misleading or patently false. Thus, if Blacks hear on the news that a "White" man like George Zimmerman shoots and kills an "unarmed" Black kid like Trayvon Martin "for no good reason" in Florida, media types are in no way to blame for the mob violence against innocent White passerby that follows in the wake of such inflammatory insinuations.
In essence, if a White (or a pseudo-White, in Zimmerman's case) allegedly perpetrates a crime against a Black, then race cannot possibly be discussed enough -- the perpetrator must be construed as a "hate-criminal," and if such patently biased coverage leads to riots and mayhem, then so be it: let truth prevail though the heavens fall! But should the alleged criminal be Black, and the victim White, and the motivations clearly linked to racial hatred... well, it would just be gauche to discuss the matter too much, if at all.
Get it? Me neither.
