Posted on 05/15/2007 7:58:04 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
The sudden force that the liberal press brought to bear on the falsely accused Duke lacrosse team has been curiously absent on a much more grisly crime committed against a white couple by a group of black youths.
Personally, I don't think that local crime issues should ever be covered in the national press but if the media are going to cover them, they need to be consistent. My friend La Shawn Barber has a must-read post on the matter:
Early this year, a white couple was carjacked, tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black thugs. Christopher Newsom (23) was gang-raped, shot and set on fire. There are unconfirmed reports that the killers cut off his penis while he was still alive. The going-to-straight-to-hell murderers made Channon Christian (21) watch, and then they gang-raped her over four days and left her to die. There are unconfirmed reports that her breasts were cut off while she was still alive. (Also see this story and the Wikipedia entry)
I’ve been getting e-mail about this case since it happened, but I’ve been hesitant to blog about it. Flopping Aces
published a big post about the case last night, which probably accounts for why I received a few more Christian-Newsom e-mails this morning. Here goes!
I’ve noticed that mainstream media are reluctant to report this story, especially when it first happened. In light of the blanket coverage the Duke “rape” case received, the paucity of coverage in this case seems a bit unbalanced. I mean, isn’t the brutal, black-on-white gang-rape, mutilation, and murder of two people more than or at least as newsworthy as a white-on-black gang-rape (which obviously was phony)? Even if the stripper’s allegations had been true, why was the Duke case burning up the airwaves while the Christian-Newsom case barely emits a spark?
What’s up with the lack of blanket media coverage? I’m not talking about a story here or there with case updates. The media should be swarming around this story. What happened to Christian and Newsom should be all over the airwaves and printing presses.
Read the rest.
Update 10:10. La Shawn's theory is interesting and seems true to me to a certain extent. However the media's coverage of race is tough to characterize because the same national press that is refusing to cover this story is also the same media that obssesses over missing white women to the exclusion of women of any other race. It also seems true that the press is more likely to show pictures of criminals if they are black than if they're white.
What to make of all this? My preliminary theory is that the media at both the local and national levels is more interested in the white audience than the black one. That makes sense from an economics point of view considering there are more whites than blacks in America. Accordingly, the media are more likely to tailor news coverage to white viewers. This explains why you continue to see "news" stories about cold cases such as Natalee Holloway or JonBenet Ramsey and are more likely to see pictorial coverage of black criminals than white ones.
Things change at the national level, however, because there is an added component--political correctness. The national press is more liberal than most local media outlets. In the guilty liberal worldview, it's wrong to promote stories about minority criminality. This explains why the Duke "rape" case was so extensively covered and the lacrosse team not afforded any presumption of innocence and why stories of black hate crimes are underreported. The same thing happens often in coverage of crimes committed by Islamic young people being blamed on "youths" that Charles Johnson is so adept at pointing out.
Then why did they ignore this one?
This story, however horrible, is NOTHING compared to the Wichita Massacre- another non-reported story:Big, big bump.
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-wichita.html
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/wichita_2.htm
THANKS FOR THE INFO.
This explains why you continue to see "news" stories about cold cases such as Natalee Holloway or JonBenet Ramsey and are more likely to see pictorial coverage of black criminals than white ones.
First off, while I agree the preferred TV victim is a pretty white female, the preferred perp is and always will be a white male. The suggestion that blacks (per capita) are more likely to have their pictures shown is not true. It may be true on distinct numbers, but black men drawf all other races for being violent criminals. Thus it may be true on pure raw numbers, but that is not a real measurement of the bias, and this article disguises that fact.
Where are the black examples of David Westerfield, Peterson, and the others that had their mugs shown over and over again on TV? Contrast this with the "beltway snipers". Remember the obsession the media had with this case and stupid Moose Johnson on TV swearing that it was the work of whites, because we are allowed to profile them and even IGNORE obivous and blantant in-your-face evidence as long as we continue searching for a white perpetrator.
Now I ask, how many of us could pick the belt-way snipers out of a line-up? Could we pick out Westerfield, Peterson (name may be wrong, but I'll never forget his face) or Megan's law killer out of a lineup?
Bump
Kansas City Massacre? The one where the black navy seaman started shooting whites in a hotel, a Holiday Inn? That was on the order of 40 years ago.
Never heard of this story before now bump.
The MSM is keeping this one really quiet.
No, it was the 2 black males and 5 whites 2 men,3 women on Christmas Eve.
For the most part true; I think that the image that lacrosse has had as an east coast elite sport might have been contributory, but the main points were what you said.
just wow.
The female victum was pretty good looking here don’t you think?
Amen!
Poynter is as Communist as the New York Times. Think NY Slimes on Tampa Bay rather than the Old Grey Presstitute on the Hudson.
The James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd comparisons I can buy. With the Duke case, the fact that it was covered was not due to race, although the way it was covered was definitely affected by race.
Amen. Snopes injects some BS that we who are complaining about the lack of coverage are suggesting that it is a media conspiracy. Idiotic statements like that drive me bat$hit. It’s not about media CONSPIRACY! It’s about media sharing a common liberal bias which saturates “politically correct” news coverage that dominates the MSM.
It’s a common dodge with libs to lie about our belief that the media conspires against us. It is as dishonest as everything else they do.
Lets hope you’re right,they won’t get justice in this world.
Thank you.
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.