Posted on 11/04/2002 5:02:08 AM PST by SJackson
So police came across the sniper suspects at least 11 times during the long manhunt but let them go every time. The Washington, D.C., police chief acknowledged that race was a factor in this amazing failure. "Everybody was looking for a white car with white people," he told the Washington Post. Writing on his Web site, Andrew Sullivan said this was racial profiling. If a white killer had been let go 11 times because cops were looking for a black man, he asked, "Wouldn't this be the basis for uproar? Wouldn't the cops involved be fired? Wouldn't there be a massive investigation?" Yes, and the press would have erupted in high dudgeon.
Why were police looking for a white man? The usual response is that, statistically, most serial killers are white. But that excuse would never be accepted if police announced they were looking for black suspects simply because statistics on black crime are high. Besides, statistical evidence about the high percentage of white snipers and serial killers is quite shaky. Whites are about three quarters of the population but account for just over half of sniper killings, says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, reporting on sta- tistics for 1976-2000. Eric Hickey, a criminal-psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, says there are plenty of minority serial killers. Blacks account for about 12 percent of the U.S. population and 22 percent of serial killers.
Despite these numbers, the "angry white male" theory seemed to spread everywhere, mostly because it reflected attitudes of its media spreaders. Reporters were even ready with experts willing to explain why the sniper or snipers were white: "White males belong to a long-advantaged group that is now having to share power and control," said criminologist Jack Levin.
Wishful thinking. "Most reporters and editors wanted the sniper to be a white male," columnist John O'Sullivan wrote. Why? Because of the typical newsroom assumption "that the great American majority that never went to the Ivy League schools is made up of racists, sexists, and homophobes."
We have been down this road before. The Atlanta child murders of 1979-81 were a big story, but the press dropped it quickly when the killer turned out to be black. The church burnings followed the same pattern-a big story when arsonists were assumed to be white racists, an instant media departure when they turned out to be black. The Unabomber was a disappointment-white, but (alas) a killer from the far left. But the press rallied with let's-understand-the-Unabomber stories pointing out that he had the courage of his convictions and was not out for personal gain (a press courtesy not extended to antiabortion killers). In contrast, the Oklahoma City bombing was a pure pressroom delight-a white, right-wing bomber who could be tied to the antigovernment "climate" represented by Newt Gingrich and other conservatives.
This time around, reporters peered through conventional media prisms, blaming the murders on the lack of gun control, the evil effects of military training, and a "sniper subculture."
continued............
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The news people knew of the car a long time before the cops released the information for them to broadcast.
Picture this. A reporter picks up from a cop a list of cars and license plates they were looking for. They had Muhammads car, his ex wifes car and his girlfriends cars listed. There were 1,300 cops looking for them. Every one of the reporters knew what was going on. They did not dare report it.
If a reporter had gone with the story before the cops gave written approval he or she would have been immediately fired? Why?
Picture this. A Big blue 1990 Chevie is in a rest area. Mommy and 10 year old Son stop to go to the rest room. Jr. sees the car he has seen on TV and points at the car and yells at mommy. Mommy tries to grab son and run. A Shot is fired from the Caprice. Mommy dies and the killers drive away.
Cops immediately cover their butt by saying they did not release the info becuase they feared this would happen. Tragic death attributed to irresponsible media ... cops say.
The reporter and the producer would be fired instantly. The channel manager would go on live TV to say this story was a direct violation of Company policy. A lawyer would win a billion dollar dammage suit against the TV channel.
TV and Radio are not the press. They do not have freedom of the press. (See Supreme court decision Red Lion Vs FCC).
Every Broadcast employee was certainly given strict orders not to do what the papers claimed the broadcast media did. If a reporter had put such a leak on the air, they would have been fired. No reporter on a station would do it and no station would allow it. A cop might try to leak the story. If some one gets hurt as a result, the cops could blame the media. Every reporter when given such information would demand... ("Pu it in writeing and have it signed or I don't air it)
Producers ask reporters what they have before they go to them live. Every producer would tell an ignorant reporter get it as a release or don't say it. If you say it you will be fired and never work on the air again.
The cops were afraid that someone would get killed. Only after hours of searhing by cops, State Police, sherrifs, FBI and BATF officers failed did they authorize the release of the car info.
The people at NBC, FOX and CNN are not stupid. Catching a killer was not worth them being found guilty in a wrongful death suit. If coffee served too hot is worth $600,000.00. What is a 10 year old reacting to a story aired in spite of cop orders and causing a mom to get killed worth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.