Missing white woman syndrome
Some of the kids being killed are the targets. Keep in mind, children includes teens, and teens have been killed for things like their sneakers, phones or over girls. Sometimes they have been killed simply because some other teen wanted to kill someone that day.
Several young Native girls from my state have gone missing in the past week and there has been little to no media coverage of it. A couple were habitual runaways but the rest were young, had no such history, and haven’t appeared to be with family members like often is the case.
A man from my own reservation was missing for a few months and his body was just found this week. I followed the case quite closely and never saw any mention of it outside of social media posts by his family/friends. Contrast that with Gabby what’s-her-name. (Which is extremely sad, and I feel for her family.)
I’m not saying it’s racism - that’s an easy culprit. It’s just weird how they get no attention compared to other groups.
1 Like
The media is covering it as though it is just the random and inexplicable act of a generally bad guy. There is little, and usually no, discussion of the fact that he posted about how much he hates white people and then shortly afterward killed some white people. THIS is what absolutely would not happen in the counterfactual I proposed.
The explanation is very simple. It’s the old adage that “Dog bights man” isn’t a story whereas “Man bites dog” is. The fact is, as you say, young black people are murdered every day in Chicago, Baltimore, DC, St. Louis, etc. On the other hand, despite the coverage given to notorious incidents like Columbine and the shooting this week in Michigan, suburban white kids very rarely face lethal violence in their schools.
By bringing this up, you’re making an excellent point: the MSM doesn’t really believe that black lives matter. They only cover the tragic killings of young black people when it reinforces a preferred narrative. The real life-and-death issue facing many young black people in urban America isn’t police brutality or “white supremacists” or the Proud Boys; it’s violent crime perpetrated largely by other young black people. But this is a difficult and painful issue that doesn’t lend itself to simple narratives or sound bites.
1 Like
Where have you seen the media covering it?! I gots to know… I haven’t heard a story about it on the corporate press in days.
We know the media lies. It’s time we deal with that reality as the open secret it really is.
Do we know for a fact what his motive was? The answer is no. We, that is, those of us posting here, can speculate all we want but do we want that from the media or rather, journalism? We complain about fake news. We complain about Rittenhouse being portrayed as a white supremacist. Now we want the news to portray someone as something based on speculation? If it’s wrong to do it in one case then it’s just wrong to do. Is there a double standard? I guess we’ll have to wait and see when the facts start coming out, and if it turns out he was racially motivated, we can judge how the media covers that.
As far as the double standard, this is America and we have a rather horrible history with regard to black people, among others. The criminal justice system has a horrible history with black people. This will inevitably affect how the news covers different races.
It is odd to me that many of those who got upset about guys like Rittenhouse being labelled as a white supremacist based on speculation, want guys like Brooks labeled as someone who committed a racially motivated hate crime based on very similar speculation. If it is wrong to do it one way, it is wrong the other way too. It is like they want something that is wrong to balance the wrong on the other side. Doesn’t make sense to me.
As someone who has it out for media narratives, i can say i wasnt happy when they called rittenhouse a white supremacist. I didn’t want brooks labelled a racist either, but the lack of attention to race in the Waukesha incident comparative to the abundance of attention to race in the Kenosha situation really does leave a bitter taste behind. TBH it’s kina hard to sort those feelings out for me, and i actually know where i stand on this… I imagine i’m not alone in this.
Really, I know that I only want fair media and legal representation without regard to race. I won’t put words in other people’s mouths, but I hope this is the same for them as well.
It is an understandable feeling for sure. I think that is why we have seen so many people highlight the differences in media in regards to when a possible hate crime is committed by POC vs a white person. The response by many white folks is that they want things like this event reported on as a hate crime (since that is what happened with Rittenhouse and others). I think it’s best not to jump to conclusions on any of it and report the facts.
It is possible for Brooks to hate white people, write bad things about white people, but have this event not related to those things (like he was trying to get away from the police perhaps). Same with Rittenhouse. We should be striving for facts based reporting, not trying to balance things out by shitty reporting.
1 Like
Similar speculation? White guy shot white guys who attacked him while not shooting the black guy who also deserved it. Black guy ran over a bunch of white people who did nothing to him. I fail to see the similarities.
1 Like
Well, the speculation was around why Rittenhouse was there in the first place. That he had ties with white supremacist groups. That he was there to shoot up lefties and POC. With Brooks it is that his hating, and writing about hating white people is what caused him to run white people over. We don’t know these things, but many jump to conclusions that “that must be why Rittenhouse was there”, or “That is why Brooks ran over white people”. We don’t have enough information to know the motive, many are speculating.
The important difference is that there was no evidence of racist behavior by Rittenhouse.
The Waukesha killer had an awful lot to say about his thoughts on race.
Of course it is pertinent to point out the obvious differences in media coverage. You know you have a point when liberals try to say you’re silly for pointing out the stark contrast.
3 Likes
I don’t know that anyone is saying that. People are saying that is how it would be covered if the races were reversed. I know Leftists will pretend that they believe the media has just finally chosen to be responsible with their coverage, but you’ll have to excuse others for not totally buying that.
Edit:
And the results were different. Rittenhouse shot white people that attacked him. Brooks ran over and killed white people in a parade.
1 Like
I’ve heard that it is how media should be covering it. That they should be covering it as if races were reversed. I say just report what happened.
1 Like
The problem is, people want narratives.
A couple problems here.
First, the media isn’t even giving people the information with which to draw inferences. Outside of a handful of articles, most MSM coverage stops with “an SUV ran over some people,” with no mention at all of Brooks’ anti-white and anti-Semitic posts.
Second, I suppose it’s possible that a fellow who posts about how much he hates white people, and then just happens to kill several white people, was not in the least motivated by racial animus, but doesn’t it strike you as extraordinarily unlikely that’s the case?
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure that’s what everyone else is saying here! Just be consistent and don’t have different sets of rules depending on what race the perpetrator or victims are.
Yet Rittenhouse offered a perfectly plausible reason for being there that had nothing to do with shooting up lefties or black people (I hate the term POCs as it lumps in together many different groups of people who have next to nothing in common). People may think it wasn’t a very good reason, but there was no evidence that he was lying about why he was there.
This is one of those myths that just won’t die, like the idea that he “crossed state lines” with an AR-15. No one has come forward with any evidence that he is tied to any group that is remotely white supremacist.
Why is that a problem?
But they did mention his criminal record and that he is a registered sex offender. So it’s not like they are trying to make him look good.
There could have been black people in the parade. It wasn’t racially segregated. Did he plan this in advance and knew there would only be white people there? Or did he happen to arrive at the scene and told himself he might as well kill some white people while he has the chance?
Speaking for myself, I can live with withholding any speculation until more facts come out. I don’t need instant bias gratification.
Consistent how? I prefer they do things the right way rather than be consistent if it means consistently wrong.
1 Like