Reporting of white on black vrs black on white crime.

[Haezed]

My google has the snopes gadget pop up on my home page and this horrific story turned out to be true. It's floating around the internet as an example of media bias in that the story was not picked up by the larger outlets. A national review author put it this way:

 

Yet the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome are known to almost no one outside Tennessee. Why?

 

It’s simple: the four suspects accused of killing Christian and Newsome are blacks from the inner city of Knoxville.

 

Uh oh, we’re not supposed to talk about such things, are we. We’re careful to step ever so gingerly around issues of race and crime, except of course when there is an opportunity, as in the Duke case, to point to a group of privileged whites and say, “See? Look at how badly they’ve behaved! Look at how they treated that poor black single mother!” And in the Michigan case we can look down our noses at a prosperous suburban white family and say, “Look how screwed up they are!” A visitor from a foreign land might read the news and suspect America was plagued by rampaging hordes of collegiate lacrosse players and middle-aged suburbanites. And all the while the far more serious problem of violent crime among minorities in our inner cities is almost completely ignored.

 

I think there is another explanation for the failure for this story to make national news. There was a time when reporting of black on white crime, or alleged crimes, caused lynching and riots and newspapers still step gingerly for this reason.

 

The Riot began on May, 31,1921 because of an incident the day before. A black man named Dick Rowland, stepped into an elevator in the Drexel Building operated by a woman named Sarah Page. Suddenly, a scream was heard and Rowland got nervous and ran out. Rowland was accused of a sexual attack against Page. One version of the incident holds that Rowland stepped on Page's foot, throwing her off balance. When Rowland reached out to keep her from falling, she screamed. The next day, Rowland was arrested and held in the courthouse lockup. Headlines in the local newspapers inflamed public opinion and there was talk in the white community of lynch justice. The black community, equally incensed, prepared to defend him. Outside the courthouse, 75 armed black men mustered, offering their services to protect Rowland The Sheriff refused the offer.

 

A white man then tried to disarm one of the black men. While they were wrestling over the gun, it discharged. That was the spark the turned the incident into a massive racial conflict. Fighting broke out and continued through the night. Homes were looted and burned.

 

I agree with the national review author that newspapers should publish statistics showing the victims race when they report monthly or yearly homocide victims. As he writes, "only when the true magnitude of this problem is acknowledged can its solutions be identified and implemented."

[Pangloss]

The dark underbelly of politically correct legislation of morality.

 

I doubt you'll see many replies on this, Haezed. The people who agree with you won't have anything to add, and those embarassed by the reality of their opinions won't have the temerity to defend themselves.

[Dak]

We’re careful to step ever so gingerly around issues of race and crime, except of course when there is an opportunity, as in the Duke case, to point to a group of privileged whites and say, “See? Look at how badly they’ve behaved! Look at how they treated that poor black single mother!” And in the Michigan case we can look down our noses at a prosperous suburban white family and say, “Look how screwed up they[/b'] are!”

 

I think it all comes down to how it's going to get interpreted by the masses (specifically, who they blame -- who the 'they' is in situations such as above).

 

'white people attack black people' generally either gets interpreted as 'people attack other people' (and the attackers all happend to be one colour, and the attacked another), or '****ing racists'.

 

'black people attack white people' generally either gets interpreted as 'people attack other people' (and the attackers all happened to be one colour, and the attacked another), or '****ing black people'.

 

iow, if you report white v black crime, then (remembering that the majority are white) theres a tiny minority who will think bad of white people because of it. if you report black v white crime, then you'll get a load of racists using it as a rally point. if they actually do anything (like the lynching that you mentioned), then theres a chance that the media will come under fire for 'premoting' it.

 

not saying that this means that it shouldn't be reported; just that i doubt the majour media outlets want to risk getting taken to court for incitement to racism.

 

tbh the blame is really jointly racists and the medias. if there were less racists that'd respond to stories like this by blaming all black people, thered be less risk in publishing the story; and if the main media weren't such cowards, they could easily do the story in a way that didn't in any way shape of form actually promote racism, and stand up to anyone who accused them of it.

 

that'd actually be preferable, 'cos then racists wouldn't be able to harp on about non-existant media coverups and conspiracies.

[BhavinB]

There's an even simpler answer given by those at snopes.com

 

Some commentators (as cited in the example reproduced above) have made much of the fact that the bulk of the news reportage about the Newsom/Christian murders has been local (predominantly in Tennessee' date=' where the crimes took place, and in neighboring Kentucky), while the case has received little or no national coverage by major news outlets — a phenomenon attributed to supposedly biased news media loath to report black-on-white crime. (Both Christian and Newsom were white; all five of the suspects arrested in connection with their killings are black.)

 

However, the notion that every major news outlet in the U.S. (all of them competitive, profit-making businesses) has conspired to ignore what would otherwise be a compelling national story is rather implausible. A more rational explanation might be found in the sober observation that murders — even decidedly horrific murders — are unfortunately too frequent an occurrence in the U.S. for all of them to garner national attention. The cases that do tend to attract prolonged, nationwide coverage are ones exhibiting a combination of factors (e.g., scandal, mystery, sexual elements, celebrity involvement, shockingly large numbers of deaths, victims who especially elicit sympathy) that make them particularly fascinating and compelling to the public at large, such as the still-unsolved murder of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, the mysterious disappearance (and death) of pregnant Laci Peterson, the massacre of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, and the celebrity trial to determine whether actress Lana Clarkson committed suicide or was killed by reclusive record producer Phil Spector.

 

And, of course, the fact that the victims were white and the (presumed) killer black didn't stop the O.J. Simpson murder trial from becoming the most media-covered event in the history of jurisprudence.[/quote']

[Pangloss]

Well, even if true, it doesn't negate the validity of the point being made. I think it just adds more depth to the problem.

 

BTW, answering the claim that the media ignores a problem by insisting that there really isn't a conspiracy to ignore the problem is a logical fallacy of distraction. Just because there isn't a media conspiracy to ignore black-on-white crime doesn't mean there isn't a problem of black-on-white crime, or that it is underreported in the media. (Not that you were making either claim, BhavinB, I'm just pointing it out for the sake of discussion.)

[foodchain]

My google has the snopes gadget pop up on my home page and this horrific story turned out to be true. It's floating around the internet as an example of media bias in that the story was not picked up by the larger outlets. A national review author put it this way:

 

 

 

I think there is another explanation for the failure for this story to make national news. There was a time when reporting of black on white crime, or alleged crimes, caused lynching and riots and newspapers still step gingerly for this reason.

 

 

 

I agree with the national review author that newspapers should publish statistics showing the victims race when they report monthly or yearly homocide victims. As he writes, "only when the true magnitude of this problem is acknowledged can its solutions be identified and implemented."

 

I would agree with reporting all hate crimes, or crimes motivated by racism for instance. Homicide rates in the U.S are quite staggering compared to say other nations in the world in general. I would also like to know what percent of these crimes were race related for instance, but its hard to say really, simply because I don’t know if they record such statistics or even release them if they are indeed recorded.

 

PC is like the united nations, its all loved until you figure out its not just about you.

[Haezed]

There's an even simpler answer given by those at snopes.com

 

 

Yes, that is in the link I provided in the OP. I was supplementing that possibility with another. Both arguments are a bit weak, however, given the sensational nature of this crime. Sensational crimes usually create sensational news.

 

As Pangloss says, however, it really doesn't matter what the cause is if the result is the underreporting of an important social problem.

[Haezed]

I would agree with reporting all hate crimes, or crimes motivated by racism for instance. Homicide rates in the U.S are quite staggering compared to say other nations in the world in general. I would also like to know what percent of these crimes were race related for instance, but its hard to say really, simply because I don’t know if they record such statistics or even release them if they are indeed recorded.

 

PC is like the united nations, its all loved until you figure out its not just about you.

 

 

I don't think you can know which crimes are hate related. Questions of intent are hard for juries, let alone for newspapers.

 

The national review article was making the larger point that most of the violence is black on black yet very few newspapers report the monthly/annual statistics that most murder victims are black.

[PhDP]

While it may look unimportant, I think one of the worst fallacy in all this is to talk about "races", while it's obvious "black" and "white" are not races (that is, even if we could divide our species into races). It strengthens the view that the amount of melanin in the skin is biologically significant.

[Dak]

biologically that's true. sociologically, however, it's not.

 

yeah, dividing people into two 'racial' groups based on melanin content, and with disreguard for actual racial divisions, is entirely arbritrary; but its still done by our societies, forsing black and white people to, sociologically, be somewhat different as groups.

 

eg:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_43.html#overview

 

# White adults were arrested most often for driving under the influence, registering 852,211 arrests for that offense.

# Black adults were most often arrested for drug abuse violations, registering 410,299 arrests for that offense

# The number of juveniles arrested for violent crime was almost equally divided between black juveniles (49.8 percent) and white juveniles (48.2 percent). White juveniles accounted for the majority of juveniles arrested for property crime (67.2 percent).

# White juveniles were arrested for larceny-theft more often than for any offense with 149,754 arrests. Black juveniles were arrested most often for other (simple) assaults with 71,486 arrests.

 

there's 'racial' differences in arrest rate, which could feasably incoporate different 'racial' crime rates.

 

the fact it's arbritrary and artificial makes it sad, not untrue.

[BhavinB]

Yes, that is in the link I provided in the OP. I was supplementing that possibility with another. Both arguments are a bit weak, however, given the sensational nature of this crime. Sensational crimes usually create sensational news.

 

As Pangloss says, however, it really doesn't matter what the cause is if the result is the underreporting of an important social problem.

 

The snopes article argues that the 'important social problem' is very prevalant and no specific gruesome murder is ignored over another based on race. Just that a) sellability is a factor b) there are just way too many gruesome murders

 

I'd say thats not too weak an argument.

[Pangloss]

It isn't an argument. It's additional detail about the problem.

[Haezed]

Just that a) sellability is a factor b) there are just way too many gruesome murders

 

a) This was a particularly gruesome murder and I'm not sure if it is typical fare.

 

b) I'm not sure if there are that many black on white crimes of this horrific nature; most are black on black.

 

c) If this were white on black crime, the result would be different. We all know it.

[john5746]

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

 

From this report:

 

Major Findings

l There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

l Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving

blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.

Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to

whites than the reverse.

l Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.

Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,

and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

l Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

l Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.

Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white

offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

l Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more

dangerous than women.

 

I didn't know it was that bad.

[Sisyphus]

Is it possible that one double murder, unusual only in its brutality, is less of a sellable news story than an entire collegiate sports team of high prominence implicated in rape? I ask because I don't think I can name any "ordinary" murders, in the last few years, that have become big national stories. Yet there have been tens of thousands of murders in that time. There has to be a high body count, like the "Beltway sniper" or the V. Tech shootings, or celebrities involved, like OJ. I mean, I wouldn't claim that Al Sharpton isn't a hypocrite, but he's one man, and usually with this stuff his antics are the bigger story than whatever tragedy he's exploiting. I'm not particularly impressed by the National Review's argument, here.

[ParanoiA]

What a disgusting story. We're seeing just how entrepreneurial news really is - it's a corporate business with an eye on profits, not accuracy, truth or any of that crap.

 

As I was reading, shaking my head, I'm also reminded of how many little black kids go missing and yet I don't see them on the news. I don't get the sensationalized story of kidnapped and sexually assaulted children unless they're white and pretty.

 

So, we're all getting shortchanged here - all races. They're reporting news based on ratings and profits only.

 

That's why I've always wondered why the media enjoys such immunity. They are obviously as greedy and corporate driven as any oil company.

 

This is also why I've always thought my "News on News" idea would be cool.

[Pangloss]

What idea is that?

[ParanoiA]

Oh, I may have posted it before. But, I've always thought it would be cool if someone would start a News on News type journalism. Where they would cover how well news stories were covered.

 

This started from two different incidents that I've personally experienced with local news - in two different states. One, Oklahoma and the other here in Kansas City. In both cases, we talked with reporters and in Oklahoma my wife did a camera interview as well. Also in both cases, they played narrative audio questions and then played back our answers - and they NEVER matched up.

 

They played back our answers to questions we didn't get asked. They edited and distorted the interviews to their advantage. This completely changed our "perceived" position - opposite from what we stood for. Keep in mind, we weren't the subject of these stories, but rather just involved as witnesses and so forth but we were misrepresented. The fact this happened the only two times I've been involved in a news story, and in two different states with almost a decade of time between them has helped formulate my bad opinion of media.

 

If they can do this locally, with apparent immunity, just imagine how they're mangling really serious international news. The kind of news and information we use to decide war and etc.

 

Anyway, I think it would awesome for an "Investigative Reports" style news show to do investigative reports on news - ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN - all of them. The media goes unchecked in many ways - it's about time they get a taste of their own medicine and be forced to operate ethically.

[Pangloss]

I've thought along similar lines. There are national watchdog groups, like FAIR or MRC, but they tend to be completely partisan to their ideological funding sources. I guess they figure that they're still performing an objective service by offsetting the other partisan sites. Too bad real objectivity doesn't work like that.

 

But yeah I've thought about doing that from time to time, particularly at the local level. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is just getting the word out on a local level. It's not the sort of thing people run searches for, so you have to use a more old-fashioned kind of ad model, putting banners and ads in people's faces and drawing them in. ($$$)

 

BTW, it's been my experience that local reporters are much more receptive and responsive to criticism than national ones. I've emailed local reporters about their stories many times, and I've found that as long as I maintain a pleasant and professional demeasnor I usually get some kind of polite response. My guess is that local reporters actually don't get a whole lot of email feedback. But I could be wrong on that, because I've noticed over the last year or so that all the local stations have taken their email addresses out of the banners that show under the reporter's name on the screen, and you can only email them through the web site using a form (so you can't see their address).

 

There is at least one web site that monitors local media happenings in South Florida, and I follow that one. I actually posted a bit of feedback on one last week that got tracked back to the newsroom at the local station. The story was a little item that ran in Tampa last week about a woman who was going to the hospital to visit her father when she was pulled over by police. The woman ignored instructions and drove off after the cop didn't believe her, and the camera footage showed the cop throwing her down on the hood for handcuffing.

 

The local reporter was basically doing a voice-over and he emotionally embellished on the story, calling it "incredible". But he neglected to mention important facts in the case, such as the fact that she was driving 65 in a 35mph hospital zone.

 

I posted in a thread that was discussing newsroom problems at that station, and I got an angry anonymous reply from someone in the newsroom at that station. At the same time I had also emailed the reporter and in both cases I was really polite about it, and the reporter himself sent me a nice email in reply (somewhat in agreement with my criticism). So I figured the angry reply on the public board was from someone else.

 

Anyway a boatload of people posted in agreement with me and in anger at the newsroom, and they didn't say squat after that, for reasons that are probably obvious.

 

But I think that sort of thing is really in its infancy. It's just too hard to start web sites with local focus, and national ones have too much baggage to haul around. National is probably the way to go, with breakouts for local boards. But there's always going to be trouble finding the audience.

 

No question someone should be watching the watchers, though.

[bascule]

From a local perspective I've seen no bias reporting black on white violence.

 

At a national level: who are you trying to blame? The collective buzz that surrounds a story?

 

There's approximately 16,000 murders per year in the United States, or an average of 44 per day. How many of these involve grizzly slayings or interracial violence? What exactly justifies the circumstances that should generate buzz?

 

If you were to ask me, the case I'm concerned with is that of Hans Reiser, but that's because I like tech and he contributed a filesystem to the Linux kernel. But how many people actually care about that? Clearly not enough to garner national media attention.

 

Nobody controls buzz. Buzz just happens. It's a collective, emergent effect. Generally it involves mass stupidity, and by the time a story has gained considerable buzz I'm already sick of it. I wish I never had to hear about JonBenet Ramsey ever again.

 

Why did the story you linked not gain national media attention? I don't know. Among the 16,000 murders that happen in the US every year, how many gain national media exposure, and what are the criteria?

 

I don't really think there are any. I also think it's quite easy to take something like the Dupe Rape Scandal/Saga/whatever and juxtapose it with something like this to make a cheap political point and try to argue some sort of racial bias.

 

I could just as easily argue that the mainstream media have a bias against programmers-turned-killers. After all, I've never seen a report on those.

[Pangloss]

Seems to me like there's a lot of reasoning in this thread to the effect that "they don't do that, but they really do, but it doesn't mean anything that they do". Why jump through all the hoops? Clearly the media has predisposed to report one type of crime over another. Clearly there must be a reason for that. Why shy away from it?

[ParanoiA]

I think we have to decide if we want entertainment, or the news. Bascule is basically complacent on it being entertainment - ie.."All kinds of people died, so here's the most popular or most interesting to our customers - what's the problem?"

 

The problem is us. We watch "entertainment" news and assume that's an accurate reflection of the world and events around us - but it's not is it? Wouldn't that be like watching Law and Order and assuming that's an accurate reflection of criminal law? The show isn't bad...but it's drama and entertainment, not truth and reality.

 

So, perhaps what we're collectively complaining about is the lack of news diversity in the mainstream. ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox are mainstream media outlets that all basically say the same damn thing. They sensationalize the same stories, overlook the same minorities and etc.

 

With more diversity in the news media, perhaps we could have our "reality check" news, and then our entertainment news for those who must know what Brittany Spears is doing and if Phil Spector is going down for murder...even though there are gang rapes on the rise and is far more serious of an issue.

[bascule]

I don't know about you two, but I've disliked the quality of television programming in general, to the point that I stopped watching. I don't own a TV and the only TV I've watched in the past 6 months was an hour long program on the Discovery channel at a friend's house. I find Google Reader to be a much better source of news than any TV program.

 

If you're engaging in a completely voluntary activity, why come here to complain about it? If you dislike the news media so bad, why do you continue to eat their dogfood? Masochism?

 

Clearly there must be a reason for that.

 

What reason is that? How is it anything other than a collective, unconscious effect of continued meta-reporting?

[Pangloss]

Who said I didn't like it? (grin)

[ParanoiA]

If you're engaging in a completely voluntary activity, why come here to complain about it? If you dislike the news media so bad, why do you continue to eat their dogfood? Masochism?

 

Why complain about the weather if you're just going to go back outside anyway?

 

Media is a double edged sword. If you insist on steering clear of the "dog food" from established media giants, then you have to worry about accuracy and truth on a much broader scale. If you instead depend on the giants only for your news, then you get the "entertainment" package - trimmed with PC.

 

Why complain? Because we're customers and we can and should complain. We want a better, more truthful, non PC media. Why not complain?