I want fair coverage. You know as well as I do that the media have a liberal template. And on racial issues, the template is that whites are evil, oppressive racists, and blacks are the innocent victims. Any news story that fits that preconceived template gets big coverage. Any news story that doesn’t fit gets downplayed or buried.
That’s why when whites commit a horrible crime against blacks, such as the James Byrd killing, it becomes a major national news story for months, or even years. Even though such crimes are actually rare, we hear about the few that occur so much that they become part of our national political debates. The press is constantly on the prowl for such crimes, which is why they jumped the gun in the Duke case. It was just too good. They had to run it, even if it sounded questionable from the beginning.
And since real, brutal white-on-black crimes are rare, the press has to “pad” things out by elevating minor things, such as nooses or nasty slurs written on a door somewhere, to the level of a major news story. Not to mention that many of those incidents turn out to be either fake or silly (people getting upset because of a noose as part of a Halloween display).
If two young black people were tortured and brutally killed like this by whites, the media would be all over this story. Candidates for president would have commented on it. The New York Times would have written six editorials on it by now (that’s how many they wrote on Duke, including one which declared the accused LaCrosse players of being guilty).
You know this is true, so why do you deny it?
Because it’s not a Big Fscking Deal in the great run of things. Journalism majors are liberal. DUH CAPTAIN OBVIOUS. So they probably won’t make as big a deal over this as a Dukelax case. Big whoop, it’s not a conspiracy to Keep the White Man Down.
The only people who want to rub in the nation’s face are people who want blacks to look bad.
What kind of people would want that? Why do you deny the obvious answer? :)