Wednesday, December 19, 2012

“Twenty-Six”: The Media’s Hatred of the Lanza Family Knows No End (Newtown Massacre)

By Nicholas Stix

As I have previously noted, the media have gone out of their way to demonize, and even endanger the lives of the surviving members of mass murderer Adam Lanza’s family. They have shown videotapes of his older brother, Ryan, and a picture of his father Peter, shown the exact street address and reported the city where Ryan lives, reported on the city where Peter and his new wife live, named the wife, and told the workplaces of all three.

There can only be one motive for the media’s actions: To terrorize the surviving Lanzas, and to aid and abet anyone who would seek to harass, threaten, and harm them.

There are also political and racial subtexts to this campaign. The Lanzas support the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and they are white. The media hate anyone who supports the Second Amendment, and they hate whites, unless the whites in question are leftists.

The family members of black, brown, and yellow mass murderers are not treated this way.

The newest media trick has been to remove Nancy Lanza from the class of victims altogether. On Monday and Tuesday, when we heard TV reporters, particularly on CNN, talk about the atrocity, they mentioned the 20 children and six educators who were killed.

Granted, they say, “killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” but the atrocity had two crime scenes. This is the opposite of their usual tack, which is to count not only all victims, but the killer, as well, as if he were a victim. This practice has always driven me nuts. You don’t add the killer to the count of the dead--he doesn’t count--but that’s what they do. Thus, according to MSM SOP, they should have spoken of “28 dead.” Instead, they are speaking of 26.

To the media, Nancy Lanza just doesn’t count. Never mind, that had Adam Lanza’s brother, father, and stepfather visited him at the time he planned his rampage, he would have killed all of them, too. Apparently, to the MSM, everyone in that family was equally guilty, and because of their racial-political profile, the MSM are even willing to relax their official opposition to the death penalty and vigilantism, should a vigilante decide to murder them.

[Previously, on this atrocity, at WEJB/NSU:

“Mass Murder in Newtown: Obama and Bloomberg Seek to Exploit the Connecticut Dead”;

“Statement by Peter Lanza, the Father of Newtown Mass Murderer Adam Lanza”;

“Newtown Massacre: List of All Murder Victims”;

“John Fund and John Lott: More Gun-Free Zones, More Public Massacres”; and

“There Ought to be a Law! Mike Huckabee on The Newtown Massacre.”]


Chicago guy said...

In the Omar Thornton mass murder the media implied that the victims brought it upon themselves due to some unproven racial attitudes they might have had. The media made Thornton out to be a victim himself. If the freak in CT were black the reporting would be different. They'd claim his mental problems were neglected by society, that he was 'underserved' (love that term) by the mental health system and that he lashed out as a result. He would be portrayed as just reacting as a result of the system failing him. His mother would get more sympathy, a person unable to cope and also failed by the system. They'd make him out to be a co-victim.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I've seen the media portray black murderers as victims of racism (subtly implying it's whitey's fault).

They didn't pull that with Lawrence Jones the shooter in the recent chicken plant shooting (which was quickly disappeared by the media, as per usual when black are the perps) but that's probably because his victims were hispanic.

I'm actually following up on my previous comment about the Oregon Clackamas Town Center shooting, I should have included a link to the photo of the shooter the media is using. There was a police press conference with this photo of the shooter displayed and it is the go to photo on the front pages and news reports. The 2nd link below it is another picture you would have to search for, I had that one in my previous comment and am including it again for quick reference. It amazing how white he looks in the first photo but how dark he looks in the 2nd. The first photo he looks like white/asian mix, the 2nd it looks like african is in the mix, particularly with shorter hair you can see it looks kinky whereas the first it look like he grew his hair long and straightened it, something blacks commonly do to look more "white". He is sitting next to his "aunt" (what her actual genetic relationship is unclear) who appears to be white but still a brunette and is not exactly blonde haired and blue eyed which makes his dark skin even more distinct. He is light enough that he might look somewhat fair skinned enough under certain light conditions but is it coincidence the media is choosing to use a photo of him looking so white or is there something more sinister - Like maybe the photo has been doctored? Maybe I'm being paranoid but considering the lengths the media goes to cover up black crime I wouldn't be surprised as anything. Likely he is a black/white/asian mix which is why he is somewhat racially ambiguous. This matters in terms of identifying the types of people who commit these crimes and if the media is conveying the impression that blacks (which is exactly what the media is doing) don't commit these crimes then they are doing the public a deadly disservice. Also, the 1% rule (according to PC ideology) dictates that any positive accomplishments by anyone with even a drop of black blood are attributed to the black race. OK, in that case they can also take credit for anything negative that is done by anyone with "one drop". It's only fair. Jerry