Why does it matter that it was an “African American” boy, and a “white” Neighborhood Watch captain? Why not simply “a boy was shot by a Neighborhood Watch captain”?
Should race play a role in how the media reports crime?
Ever notice that the media is pushing a political agenda? Certain minor events are reported endless 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.