Racial assault in Philadelphia
From the Philadelphia Daily News comes the story of three teenagers attacking a passenger in a taxi cab and then the driver, apparently for no reason other than race. While the paper, in a rare gesture, informs us that the assailants were black and the victims white, it doesn’t provide this information until almost the end of the article, even though the very first sentence of the story states that the attackers used racial slurs on the victims. As a result, over the course of six paragraphs and 217 words, the reader knows that it was a racial attack, but he has not been told which race was attacking which. Since the Daily News was so reluctant to be forthcoming on that point, why did it mention race at all? Because, as just mentioned, the attackers themselves used racial slurs—which generally is not the case with the endless series of black-on-white assaults in this country (do you think that black thugs are not hip to hate-crime laws?). Therefore this mainstream media organ, even under the pro-black, anti-white rules of liberal journalism, had no choice but to specify the race of the assailants and the victims, which the mainstream media ordinarily do not do; but, reflecting its pro-black imperative, it didn’t do so until two thirds of the way through the article.
Thugs attack cabbie, passenger
Black attackers do in fact routinely use racial slurs as they go after their victims; it simply isn’t reported.LA replies:
Then why was the use of slurs reported so prominently in this story of a black-on-white attack, and is not mentioned at all in almost all other similar stories?Jake F. writes:
I thought of this—not for the first time—while reading “Racial Assault in Philadelphia.”LA replies:
That is very insightful. I think that when I saw “racial slurs,” something like your thought vaguely and distantly occurred in my mind, but I didn’t pursue it.January 31
Mark Jaws writes:
Give Mr. Jake a gold star for his correct call on the “racial slurs” lead. While most of us, to include normally astute liberalologists such as I, hailed this story on a black-on-white racial assault in Philadelphia as a sign of progress, Jake saw this for what it was. A deliberate attempt to obfuscate the increasingly frequent and widespread spectre of unprovoked black-on-white racial assaults. By witholding key information until the very end of the article (and in doing so violating basic journalistic principles), the reporter and editor left open the possibility that many readers would incorrectly interpret this as a white-on-black assault, which by the way hardly ever happens.LA replies:
I don’t think that Jake’s point was that there was an intention to make readers believe that this was a white-on-black assault, since the story states plainly, though belatedly, that it was a black-on-white assault; but rather that, even while readers realized that it was a black-on-white assault, they would be subtly pulled in the direction of having the feelings they would have if it were a white-on-black assault, thus reducing to a subtle degree their reactions to the actual black-on-white assault.