Topic: The Media racist? Don't be ridiculous.

[Pandora]

Older piece ...

... Certain minor events are reported endlessly while some major events are ignored. It all depends on the political agenda of the news outlet. It is no secret that the agenda is usually a left-wing one.

This agenda is especially pronounced when it comes to crime. The media does not like to report black crime. Even when an at large suspect posed an immediate danger to the public, the media would rather ignore it.

I’ve written about this issue for years online. I got a big break in 2007. The LA Times issued an official online statement admitting that it was standard practice in the newspaper industry to censor of the race of minority crime perpetrators.

In the past year, a multitude of media bosses have publicly confessed to censoring black crime. Some of them proudly confess, and say that the censorship is for the public’s benefit. Some of them even call critics “racists” for asking for accurate news coverage.

All of these “media elites” place political correctness far above public safety. For the past year, I've been collecting news articles on the subject. Here are my complete findings.

The TV Show COPS

John Langley, creator and producer of the TV show COPS bragged to conservative columnist Ben Shapiro that he censors black crime.

Langley states “What irritates me sometime is critics still watch something and say ‘oh look they misrepresent people of color.’ That’s absolutely not true. Au contraire. I show more white people than statistically what the truth is in terms of street crime. If you look at the prisons it’s 60-something percent people of color, and 30-something percent of white people. If you look at COPS it’s 60 percent white and 40 percent, it’s just the reverse. And I do that intentionally, because I don’t want to contribute to negative stereotypes.”

Langley boldly admits to censoring black crime for political reasons.

Associated Press

Tom Kent, deputy managing editor for standards and production at The Associated Press recently admitted that the AP censors black crime.

Last March Kent said that race is not usually mentioned unless it is a “hate crime.” As you know, the media rarely declares black on white crime to be a “hate crime.” Only the extremely rare white on black crimes are ever considered a “hate crime” in the media.

Kent said that if the police are looking for an at large suspect they may mention race. However, Kent stated “but once a person is captured, it probably would not be germane to the story.”

In other words, unless the perp is white or the police specifically ask for it, the AP censors the race of black crime perpetrators.

New York Times

Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times recently confessed to censoring black crime.

Last March, 18 black males aged 16-27 were arrested for allegedly gang raping an 11 year old Mexican girl in Cleveland, Texas. The radical New Black Panther Party actually held a rally at an all black church demanding the release of the perpetrators. Over one hundred local blacks attended the rally.

The New York Times ran an article that critics say blamed the victim and her family. It also expressed shock that members of the public were supported the accused perps.

However the Times completely censored the fact that the perpetrators are black. The newspapers also portrayed those who were supporting the perps as “Texans.”

There was a backlash against the New York Times for their insulting coverage.

The New York Times published a follow-up admitting their first piece “lacked balance.”

Philip Corbett, however, defending censoring the race of the perpetrators. He said that mentioning the race of a crime perpetrator does “not really providing any useful information and it could be sort of boiler plate.”

By “boiler plate,” Corbett means that it would be politically incorrect to inform the public the truth about crime in America. He feels that political correctness is more important than public safety.

Chicago Tribune

Last June Chicago Tribune senior vice president and editor Gerould Kern admitted the newspaper censors black crime in a rather nasty response to his critics.

Kern stated, “we guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion because of the color of their skin."

His admission of guilt came after a series of brutal racially motivated mob attacks against white people in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune censored the race of the perpetrators and concealed the nature of the attacks.

When critics attacked the Tribune for their coverage, Kern proudly boasted of the papers' censorship and personally insulted the white victims. He ranted, “there is no evidence to suggest that the victims were singled out because of their race.”

Following the diatribe by Chicago Tribune Editor Kern, Chicago Tribune opinion page writer Steve Chapman, who calls himself “a minority of one,” stated the same thing and defended the practice.

Chapman, who is on the far left, states “It’s the newspaper’s sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else.” Chapman then got very nasty in his diatribe defending censorship. He states that people who advocate accurate reporting of crime stories “fear or dislike blacks.”

Chapman also decided to take a jab at the innocent white victims of black mob violence in Chicago. He claimed the race of the perpetrators was not relevant. Then he said stated “what good would it do to trumpet the skin color of the thugs? So pedestrians on Michigan Avenue can run away when they see two or more African-Americans?”

Obviously Chapman would rather see more innocent white people attacked than report the news accurately.

Washington Post

In August of 2010 the Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander stated that the paper censored race. He said that Weekend News Editor Robert E. Pierre supported the censorship.

The Post came under criticism by readings for censoring black mob violence on the local metro system.

Alexander whined, “The Post should always be sensitive to overplaying stories, especially if race is involved.” Keep in mind that Alexander is talking about a story that the Post was criticized for downplaying, not overplaying.

Pierre attacked critics of the paper’s coverage as “racial insensitive.”

LA Times

The LA Times was the first newspaper I ever noticed openly admitting to racial censorship. This was back in 2007. The paper made an online database of homicides. They offered a sort of apology for including the races of the perpetrators. They stated that it was normally their policy to censor this information.

On June 6, 2007 the LA Times made this official statement. “Racial information was once routinely included in news stories about crimes, but in recent decades, newspapers and other media outlets stopped mentioning suspects’ or victims’ race or ethnicity because of public criticism. Newspapers came to embrace the idea that such information is irrelevant to the reporting of crimes, and may unfairly stigmatize racial groups.”

By “public criticism,” they are referring to bullying by radical racial groups like the NAACP.

... but ever current.

ETA:  And more:

The trial is underway right now for Mona Yevette Nelson. She is a black woman who allegedly kidnapped a white child and tortured him to death with a blowtorch in Houston. There has never been any serious media coverage of this case.

The trial started this week, and it has only registered a tiny blip in the local news. Only one local media affiliate, KTRK Houston Channel 13, even appears to be covering the trial. Other Houston media outlets only published tiny blurbs that the trial has started, but none of them even mentioned how the boy died.

[IronDioPriest]

I guess we need some White race-pimps, huh? I'm not joking. A network of Whites with a few demagogic charismatic leaders, willing to jet off to any locale when a Black-on-White crime is committed, calling a news conference, holding a rally, stoking White outrage against Blacks, proclaiming guilt before the trial, calling anyone and everyone who dares challenge them a racist.

[Glock32]

I guess we need some White race-pimps, huh? I'm not joking. A network of Whites with a few demagogic charismatic leaders, willing to jet off to any locale when a Black-on-White crime is committed, calling a news conference, holding a rally, stoking White outrage against Blacks, proclaiming guilt before the trial, calling anyone and everyone who dares challenge them a racist.

This will be a natural consequence of the changing demographics. White people will be forced to start thinking in ethnic terms and to develop a sense of ethnic identity. White liberal elitists in media and entertainment may have an infinite capacity for obsequious groveling, but that's because they have their own ulterior motives. Regular white people are catching on to the fact that no amount of apology, set asides, and special dispensation will ever be "enough" and every interaction in the culture has the predetermined outcome that Whitey is to blame.

[Pandora]

It's Whites who have done this, Leftist Whites.  Robert Oculus calls them Disingenuous White Liberals, or DWLs, although I do not believe they are disingenuous -- they are evil -- and they surely are not liberal.

The Thinking Housewife writes:

"HERE is a book you are not likely ever to find at your local Barnes and Noble or public library. It’s called The White Book: A Manifesto for the European Diaspora. Just as The Gulag Archipelago wasn’t on news stands in the Soviet Union, this book won’t be openly discussed. It essentially doesn’t exist. It’s a book about a forbidden subject, an evil subject, a dirty subject, a subject so disgusting you could lose your job and friends if people knew you had read it. It’s about white people, and it affirms the right of white people to exist as whites. The author, Robert S. Oculus III, does not dare use his real name.

Here is the preface. Read at your own peril:"

[trapeze]

The first post that cites people in media covering up black crime is a perfect example of the self brainwashing described in my post on the phenomenon of libs no longer being able to distinguish the truth from lies (and losing intelligence). This is how it happens. It's also how a lot of ordinary Germans were able to look at the Holocaust indifferently...they were brainwashed into accepting the lie as truth. They were cowards, too, but that came first. Accepting a lie as truth came later. Today we have people who have cowardly accepted PC lies because they are afraid of being branded as racists and they evolve psychologically into stupid people.

It is somewhat surprising that the author of that article was able to find anyone at all who was still in possession of enough of their faculties to admit the truth.

[Libertas]

It is no surprise why the MFM would not report on cases like the Mona Yevette Nelson terrorism story...

When the Great Reckoning is upon us they'll be a shortage of pikes.

[Maddy]

The media bias is out of control these days. It's criminal. In fact here's a story on how the media is all but ignoring the story that broke over the weekend out of NYC where an elderly gentlemen was killed by a black man screaming "I hate white people!" ( story link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/07/i-hate-white-people-random-racial-rampage-in-new-york-leaves-one-man-brain-dead/ )

Here's the article that that I mentioned above: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/08/national-media-completely-ignore-ny-man-left-brain-dead-attacker-shou#comment-1034628532

It's truly an outrage. All I can say is thank God for new media!

[IronDioPriest]

The media bias is out of control these days. It's criminal...

I believe it is. Whether technically criminal or not, it is at the very least treasonous, in the moral sense of the word. Treason does have a constitutional remedy.

...All I can say is thank God for new media!

New media is great, and I thank God for it too. But we can never allow ourselves to believe that it is even close to enough. New media truth will never trump establishment media. All that has happened with the advent of new media is a separation of audiences. The establishment media got burned by giving credence to new media with the bogus Bush National Guard story, and touched the stove again when they allowed the Swiftboaters to derail Kerry with truth.

Ever since then, establishment media has been consciously divesting itself of audiences concerned with the truth, surviving by serving swill to the ignorant. Losing complete control, they settled for being a "parallel" media, that ignores truths inconvenient to the narrative, and creates "truths" to help the narrative. The establishment media learned that by ignoring blogs and other new media sources, we are just flies and gnats. They've found that they can ignore flies and gnats most of the time, swat them other times, get stung once on a while, and still support the narrative enough of the time to win the long game.

We need to keep fighting. But it is what it is. New media isn't "the" media. It is our media.

[LadyVirginia]

The new media.

I've come to dislike that phrase.

And the expectation that they will save us.

Media is a tool.  All that matters is we use it.

[Libertas]

I would prefer those who are doing the real job all journalists used to do as the "real media". 

[Maddy]

One of the many reasons I'm liking the New Media more and more. Read this, tweet by tweet, until you get to the bottom (no peeking!)

Because of the nature of Twitter (real time, anyone can ask questions, etc...) the truth of this small story came out. Thanks to Twitter it's now a non-story and the media will want nothing to do with it. I would bet ten bucks had this "racial justice blogger" not ran her mouth on Twitter the lamestream media would have gotten involved and, of course, left out the important details. That is, until someone started questioning a week or so later. Then, they'd drop it like a hot potato.

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/15/dc-woman-claims-uber-driver-choked-her-because-she-kissed-my-white-husband/

[Libertas]

One of the many reasons I'm liking the New Media more and more. Read this, tweet by tweet, until you get to the bottom (no peeking!)

Because of the nature of Twitter (real time, anyone can ask questions, etc...) the truth of this small story came out. Thanks to Twitter it's now a non-story and the media will want nothing to do with it. I would bet ten bucks had this "racial justice blogger" not ran her mouth on Twitter the lamestream media would have gotten involved and, of course, left out the important details. That is, until someone started questioning a week or so later. Then, they'd drop it like a hot potato.

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/15/dc-woman-claims-uber-driver-choked-her-because-she-kissed-my-white-husband/

Thing about Twitter is...not always the most reliable source...

I don't Tweet, but if I did and I came across this I would be the lone "This is BS!" voice...no doubt would be pounced upon by jobless neerdowells still camped out in Momies basement...I mean from 1:55am to 3:43pm and nobody is calling BS on this story?  I think even a MFM moron smelled something funny here and wouldn't run with it...they need to be able to push something they can control for a few days before the real news gets out...

[RickZ]

To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan:  The media is the message (of the DNC).

[LadyVirginia]

I like twitter

though I had to laugh at the person who's tweeting that the news will call the person a "terrorist" instead of a gun nut
what planet is that person from?

[Sectionhand]

" If I had a brother , he'd look like Aaron Alexis ."

~ Stymie

[Libertas]

" If I had a brother , he'd look like Aaron Alexis ."

~ Stymie

 

'Nuff said!

[Libertas]

I like twitter
though I had to laugh at the person who's tweeting that the news will call the person a "terrorist" instead of a gun nut
what planet is that person from?

You might find this thread interesting then.

[LadyVirginia]

I like twitter
though I had to laugh at the person who's tweeting that the news will call the person a "terrorist" instead of a gun nut
what planet is that person from?

You might find this thread interesting then.

I added my .02 there 

[Libertas]

I like twitter
though I had to laugh at the person who's tweeting that the news will call the person a "terrorist" instead of a gun nut
what planet is that person from?

You might find this thread interesting then.

I added my .02 there 

I saw that.  Apparently you are our resident expert!