Everyone else, or at least, Larry Auster and my VDARE colleague, John Derbyshire, is reprinting this little gem, so I might as well, too, especially as it is on a topic near and dear to me and my readers.
It’s excerpted from Gates of Vienna, where there’s much more.
GoV refers to brown-on-white attacks as “brown-on-white” attacks; in America, browns are, or were for roughly 15 years, referred to as “black.”
The racial rules for reporting on mob violence might be summarized as follows:
White on White:
Normal news reportage. The incident is examined with objectivity, delving into the background of the violence and the response of the authorities, with no particular slant — unless, of course, left-wing or right-wing political views are an issue, in which case the usual media bias may be expected.
White on Brown:
The incident instantly becomes headline news, above the fold and at the top of the hour, and remains there for weeks or months. Every day the front-page analyses and crawl-ribbon snippets are crafted to demonstrate the racist motives of the perpetrators and the innocence of the victims.
Brown [N.S.: Black] on White:
This news must be buried at all costs. Media outlets will hide it completely if they possibly can. If they must report on it, the race of the perpetrators will be occluded whenever practical. If the facts cannot be avoided, they will be spun to include circumstances that mitigate the racial element; e.g. it was somehow the fault of the white victims through their racist, inconsiderate, corrupt, or thoughtless behavior.
Brown on Brown:
This news is not really news, and will be largely forgotten after the first few days of video showing burning vehicles, police charges, and rubble in the street. It’s inside-pages stuff, not worth the attention of a white audience.
Derbyshire adds,
The only thing they missed is the compulsory statement, when reporting Category Three [N.S.: Black-on-white] incidents, that "there was no apparent racial motivation" for the attack. This ritual statement should preferentially be made by the white victim, or a close relative. Failing that, the soothing words will be spoken by a law enforcement officer.
I will add one more stage that goes back to at least the March 30, 2005, Six Little Girls attack in Marine Park, Brooklyn: Of the MSM mocking the victims, and condemning, as “white supremacists” and/or neo-Nazis, any dissident publications who report on what the MSM had sought to cover up. In this particular case, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post ran a racist rant by its black supremacist reporter, Leonard Greene, denouncing the feisty reporter, Marianna Hernandez, at the tough little community newspaper, Brooklyn Skyline, for reporting on what Greene wanted silenced.
On April 25, reporters Angelina Cappiello, Patrick Gallahue, and Erika Martinez, of the allegedly conservative New York Post, emphasized in the lead to their article, that the case “became a rallying point on white-supremacy Web sites,” and mocked the victims’ parents for hiring a lawyer. “One parent said she and the other parents are planning to obtain a lawyer and take legal action — though she couldn't specify exactly what action would be taken.”
The reporters had to know that in New York, white victims of racial attacks must pay for expensive, aggressive legal representation, just as if they were defendants, if they wish to obtain justice. Otherwise, police and prosecutors alike will treat them with contempt.
The Post report mentioned in passing that the charges had been upgraded to felonies, after the city corporation counsel had overruled police in determining that the crime was a felony bias attack. City lawyers virtually never up the ante for black racial attackers. The Post reporters had to know that the change was likely due to the victims’ parents having hired high-profile lawyer Stephen Murphy, and from the publicity that ensued from the Skyline report. [P.S.: The Post reporters were getting even with the victims’ parents for not submitting to the racist abuse.]
The Post report did, however, quote state Sen. Carl Kruger as saying, “If you look at our community in Brooklyn, [hate crimes] are not down. This is another reminder.” That was an unusually courageous statement for a politician.
In a column in the same edition, Post reporter Leonard Greene was even more hostile. In “Vile outbursts are fanning flames of hatred,” Greene argued that in reporting on the attack, the Brooklyn Skyline had committed a crime equal to that of the racist mob.
“THERE were two bias crimes in Brooklyn.
“The first happened when a group of black girls allegedly attacked a group of white girls …
“The second happened when a local newspaper resorted to hate speech and race-baiting to stir up local outrage over the incident.”
More recently, the racist MSM has upped the ante to getting writers fired and seeking to destroy their lives, in retaliation for them, er, reporting on black racist violence.
Leftwing bloggers Alex Pareene (Salon), John Cook (Gawker), and Kyle Munzenrieder (Miami New Times), all tried to get Matt Drudge fired merely for linking to stories from around the country on the black racist lynch mob attacks on whites on Memorial Day, 2011, forgetting that Drudge doesn’t have a boss to fire him.
At the same time, Chicago Tribune editor Gerould W. Kern and columnist and self-proclaimed libertarian editorial board member Steve Chapman responded to readers who had complained about their cover-up of an entire years-worth of black-on-white racial attacks, by firing them.
More recently, leftwing and allegedly rightwing bloggers joined forces to get John Derbyshire fired from National Review, for failing to maintain silence about, and/or lie about black racist violence.
In a 2008 case of the MSM celebrating racist black-on-white violence, a New York Times operative was beside himself with glee, over black Curtis Lavelle Vance’s savage, racist, rape-murder of white TV news reader, Anne Pressly. Oddly enough, the Times ran the piece unsigned.
[N.S.:] But when the New York Times reported on Vance's arrest in an unsigned article, it went beyond its 62-year-old tradition of shielding black criminals. It not only left out any mention or running any photographs indicating that Vance was black, but (in a display of the compassion for which it is so justly famous) positively gloated about the crime:
“The beating startled much of the state and horrified Ms. Pressly's neighbors in the prestigious Pulaski Heights neighborhood, an enclave of old houses, and where residents considered themselves essentially exempt from violent crime." [“Arrest in Killing of a TV Anchor,” by The New York Times, November 27, 2008.]
... Chicago Tribune editor ... responded to readers who had complained about their cover-up of an entire years-worth of black-on-white racial attacks, by firing them.
ReplyDeleteGee, can an editor do that?
I was kidding, but Kern and at least one member of his editorial board and cover-up team, Steve Chapman, acted as if they could.
ReplyDelete