And that is the EXACT reason for my post: race is ignored if the perpetrator is black. But race is in the first lines, and almost always in the headlines, if the perpetrator is white and / or if the victim(s) is black.
It is reverse- discrimination and it seems to be all- pervasive, at least with news agencies w/in the US, even including non- US news agencies reporting in the US (BBC for example). It seems to be an unstated rule that all must follow. My own take on it is that apparently racism has new facets to its very definition: mentioning the race of a perpetrator of a crime, if that perpetrator is black is racist, not mentioning the race of a perpetrator who is white is also racist. The new default seems to be that white people cannot be discriminated against, no matter how much they are discriminated against, simply because they are white. The reverse is also true, any mention of race when speaking about anyone who is non- white is racist and discriminatory.
News, by definition, should be as unbiased as possible. But what we seem to have here is 'the tail wagging the dog' in current journalism: instead of simply reporting the news as neutral facts, it is reported only after being massaged to make it P.C., and if need be, some parts are simply left out while other aspects get additional attention or specific mention. It seems that no one is able to stand up to what is perceived as "The right thing to do" and actually do the right thing anymore. I would imagine Edward R. Murrow might have, and I like to think would have, resisted such nonsense but it seems social pressure has pushed most (all?) of journalism to the point where the truth and the whole truth just cannot be stated anymore.
Brian
<snip>
As far as the news play on that incident in question I was wondering the same thing because I couldn't tell what was going on either. Even Fox news this morning (Web) isn't talking about the ethnicity of the parishioners shot.
<snip>