[GalasaKoll]

1. I don't know the success rate of all your threads, just the ones pertaining to "media bias", because you seemingly make a new one every other day.

You said I had made one or two attempts in the past. How does one or two become 'seemingly' every other day? Are you an idiot or do you assume everyone here is an idiot? I can't think of any other possible option for someone who made such a major contradiction.


2. Show me some evidence that you're not cherry picking. Again, a paper from a media watchdog or research center will do! Asserting that the media is silent about race when it's about blacks is not evidence. I don't need to google a watchdog. I just need to look at their policy. We have a columnist from The Chicago Tribune speaking about policy. How about we look at the most prestigious American newspaper?

New York Times, Houston Chronicle explain relevance of race & ethnicity in Cleveland rape coverage

When initial reports about a gang rape in Cleveland, Texas, became public earlier this month, there was hardly any mention of the victim’s or suspects’ race — mainly because reporters covering the story didn’t think it was relevant. Throughout the last two weeks, however, race and ethnicity have become an increasingly important part of the coverage.


“We don’t identify people’s race in most stories, unless that is an issue,� said Tom Kent, deputy managing editor for standards and production at The Associated Press. “Say for example, it’s a story about a hate crime allegation, or you have a situation where there’s a manhunt going on and the police issue a description of the person. We may include the description, but once a person is captured, it probably would not be germane to the story.�

The New York Times has a similar policy. It only includes race if it’s relevant to the story and if that relevance is made clear to the reader. um, does that sound familiar? Sounds like Chapman but it's not Chapman. It's the policy of the NY Times. So when is race relevant? A manhunt and a hate crime but, um, not when a mob of Black teenagers assault Whites or in this case when all the accused are Black. When those 4 White guys from Duke were accused of raping a Black stripper race was apparently news worthy but then again we can always figure out the race of the accused quite easily. Semi-elite universities don't have Black Lacrosse players and Whites don't have large scale gangbang rapes.


What do you mean by "that sort of thing"? If you're referring specifically to mob attacks, I would agree, those are quite rare. Murder is rare as well but that doesn't mean individuals from one group aren't more likely to do it than others.

But run of the mill racially motivated attacks are most commonly committed by whites. Here are some statistics from the FBI:

"In 2009, the racial breakdown of the 6,225 known hate crime offenders was as follows:
â–*62.4 percent were white.
â–*18.5 percent were black.
â–*7.3 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).
â–*1.0 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
â–*0.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.
â–*10.2 percent were of unknown race. (Based on Table 9.)"

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/offenders.html

Feel free to look at the documents. Let me break it down for you since you're dumb as shit:

1) Despite the fact Latinos/Hispanics are added to the White category the percentage of people labeled as Whites who commit any type of hate crime is lower than their representation in the population unlike with Blacks where it's much higher.

'White' - population: 72.4% Percentage of hate crime offender are 'White': 62.4%

Black - population: 12.6% Percentage of hate crime offender are Black: 18.5%

2) Look here: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_07.html

Almost half of hate crimes against Whites are assaults (aggravated and simple), while roughly less than a quarter of assault against Blacks are assaults (same). Now wrap your mind around the reality that Whites (which includes Latinos here) make up 6 times the Black population.

Now the story looks quite different. Blacks become more likely to commit hate crimes than Whites. They are much more likely (more than double) to assault (both aggravated and simple) and just as likely to intimidate a person of another race.

Thanks for the stats. You can now kick yourself for actively taking part in your own ownage.



What difference does it make, idiot? If someone is targeted because of their race, the age of the attacker/s is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant when it's lopsided. It's irrelevant to you because you would like to pretend it's only an issue to terrible racists but a fact is a fact. You know what's terrible? The fact that I'm more likely to die in airplane while sitting next to Tony Danza than a Black woman getting raped by a White. It very rarely happens at all. In fact (there is that word again) we go years without having such an incident. Yet, we have quite a number of Black on White rapes. Since you're so keen on looking at data take a gander at the FBI crime statistics and then tell me it 'doesn't matter." Well, it kind of does matter when it's so lopsided.

Furthermore, name ONE (really, just one) white on black hate crime that has garnered national attention in the last three years. Sean Hannity, on terribly racist Fox News, taking up the Black guy's cause and making his case known across the nation. Millions upon millions of viewers.



The major national networks(NBC, ABC, CBS) have declared the U.S. to be a "post racial" society, and thus, have stopped reporting hate crimes all together. Ever since Obama, hate crimes are only reported by local news outlets. You must not be much of a reader: LA Times reporting on hate crimes against Latinos in Staten Island.

The LA Times, NY Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal are major sources of information. In fact (again there is that word) NY Times is the go to news source by everyone in the news industry.

Here's a website you might enjoy reading: http://whitewatch.info/ I've seen it before. It's poorly done.

Scroll down to see the story of white youths beating up a native american family. Did that garner national news coverage? I don't think so. There are plenty of similar stories that don't receive national attention. They didn't beat up a native American family. They beat up the male. That and your own reading comprehension skills is terrible but here is the difference between my articles and the one you mentioned: one involves an individual hate crime and the other involves a mob assaulting people. Individuals get assaulted all the time by one or a small group of people. What doesn't normally happen is a mob of people roaming about the streets beating people because of their race. You also have an unusual trend of Black youths entering stores and stealing as much as they can. It didn't happen once, or twice, and it occurred in different cities. In addition there is an active attempt by journalists to downplay race.



Seriously, the point of this thread is not difficult to understand: race (Black) downplayed when there are incidents (the examples are large scale). How you think that article about the Native American family, and hate crimes in general, counters my point is beyond me since the race of White attackers was not downplayed (and never is when there is a racial incident where they're the aggressors), while initially the race of the mob of teenagers had been and we have a columnist of a major newspaper giving his reason why they hold back the background of attackers, which is also part of the policy of the NY Times (the benchmark of US news).


You're right, criminals don't stop and think about how their actions affect people's perceptions of their race. But, if the media reported black on white crime 24/7 it would probably evoke feelings of guilt among black activists, thereby making them less likely to defend such behavior. That in itself would result in less racial tension. I laughed so hard. As if Black crime is a problem today and not yesterday. They missed their chance many times over the past 40 years.