This is a topic I should probably let lie. With all of the networks “LOVING” the riots and ratings in the show me state I would be better off remains quiet. But that is not what this world is about. You know who keeps quiet? Hostages! Hostages keep quiet. A video that I recently saw on Facebook compels me to ask a few questions in light of all the press coverage and race baiting though these terms are redundant.
Monday night brought us coverage of the Grand Jury determination that the “White police officer who killed an unarmed black teenager” would not be charged sparking riots and looting. The quotes is generally the way the story was headlined in the media…even supposedly conservative outlets. Even they are afraid of being labeled racist. Frankly I am not sure that I’ll publish this for that same reason. I KNOW that I am not a racist, but I see a lot around me and I am not talking KKK crap.
A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
The generally accepted use is white folks feeling superior to black folks. It is a very comfortable narrative for race-batters and their media whores. As demonstrated in the reporting of events in Missouri, I might suggest the real racists are the ones who assumed that because the police officer was white he must have killed the black teenager because he did not value that person’s life. Hence the race-baiting headlines. A more accurate headline might have excluded the race of either man involved (that’s right I used the term “man” for the man killed as he was over eightee and an adult). Perhaps something like this as we knew many of the facts of the case shortly after the incident;
“Man killed, police officer injured in scuffle in Missouri.”
That was easy and I am not a professional media editor. No race, just the facts. Why wouldn’t any journalism graduate be able to produce that headline? Based on the initial facts that would be an appropriate headline. REAL journalism would seem the dictate that news reporters don’t assume facts not in evidence or a conviction hasn’t occured. Don’t they still refer to criminals as “suspects” even with overwhelming evidence? If there was not racism involved why wouldn’t a news outlet use this headline;
“Black man shot to death when he attacked a white police office.”
The networks all were ready for the verdict. They all knew what was coming. They all had their little graphics ready. The reports that I saw announced the verdict/results and went right to the live shots of the protests and rioting. That’s what constitutes news in this day and age. The Grand Jury results could not have been better for the networks. If you paid attention to the details of the shooting, I mean REALLY digest the FACTS those pesky facts just keep getting in the way of the “story.” This happens far too often for this not to be racism.
The fact remains that if the young man had not attacked a police officer he would be alive today. The inspiration for this story was the following YouTube video;
As you see there was no real mention of race when a white police officer helped a you black child buy some cookies. It was treated as a tragic story. You might even be tempted to think there are police officers who are not out to kill black youths. This would be the end except for the FACTS of the story. The facts that NBC didn’t report even though they had them at the time of the report.
This American veteran turned police officer did a kind act for a young man and was later murdered while in his police car. He was murdered by a black man. The white officer was killed with a shot gun blast by a black man while he was stopped at a traffic light. Was the officer killed because he was white? Because he was a police officer? Kudos to NBC for covering this story and leaving out the potential race aspects. Perhaps they should do that more often.