Accuracy in Media

In sharp contrast to President Bush’s plea for “civil discourse” with his political enemies, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave a powerful speech at the American Enterprise Institute banquet on Feb. 13, urging a serious and potentially divisive debate on major public policy issues, including race relations. He cautioned, however, that “active citizens” who challenged the liberal agenda would be branded “mean-spirited, racist, Uncle Tom, homophobic, sexist, etc.”

Thomas recalled that when he gave an interview years ago to a Washington Post reporter and was critical of such “sacred policies” as affirmative action, welfare and school busing, he “had never been called such names in my entire life.” Thomas added, “It became clear in rather short order that on the very difficult issues such as race there was no real debate or honest discussion. Those who raised questions that suggested doubt about popular policies were subjected to intimidation. Debate was not permitted. Orthodoxy was enforced. When whites questioned the conventional wisdom on these issues, it was considered bad form; when blacks did so, it was treason.”

Fortunately, there are black Americans in addition to Justice Thomas who are willing to take the risk. John McWhorter, a young professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, has written a brutally honest book about race relations in America titled Losing the Race. In it, he shows how victimology, separatism and anti-intellectualism have come to dominate the black community. McWhorter describes many of the real problems affecting blacks, including black student underachievement, which he has witnessed first-hand, and explains why affirmative action is an “evil” that hurts, not helps, black people.

McWhorter’s book complements one by Larry Elder, the popular radio talk show host and columnist based in Los Angeles. Elder’s powerful book, The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America, introduced the term “victicrat” to describe those liberal blacks who enrich themselves by peddling the notion that blacks in America are the victims of white conspiracies. Elder says the victicrats have dominated the discussion of race relations in the U.S. Among those he names are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, who has declared there is no one “great white bigot,” only “about 200 million little white ones.”

Malveaux has also said she hopes Clarence Thomas’s wife is feeding him lots of cholesterol-laden foods because she wants to see him die young from a heart attack. Those who criticize the “us-versus-them” pitch are regarded as the enemy because they are attacking the means whereby the victicrats live. Like Justice Thomas, Elder was himself targeted by the victicrats. A black campaign tried to force him off the air in 1998.

Despite the determined efforts of the Bush-Cheney campaign to loosen the grip of the Democrats on the black vote, they won a lower percentage of the black vote than Dole and Kemp won in 1996. Bush addressed the NAACP convention, but the reception was cool. That was to be expected because the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, led by former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, has become a virtual arm of the Democratic Party. It is run by victicrats who have nothing but scorn for those, black or white, who believe the advancement of colored people should depend on their ability and the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

The Victicrats in Action

“Why Don’t Black Americans Give Bush a Chance?” was the title of an op-ed article by John McWhorter in the Washington Post on Dec. 31. He said that the gap between blacks and whites in school performance is one reason why blacks could find commonality with the Bush administration. Bush, he said, favors school choice and accountability from local school boards for the performance of students and teachers. But instead of supporting Bush’s efforts to improve the education of black children, the leading victicrats were challenging the outcome of the election, making unfounded claims that blacks had been prevented from voting in Florida. This is an example of how the victicrats ignore the real problems in the black community and promote themselves by fanning racial tensions.

As president, Bush’s response has been to pander to them. He met with the Congressional Black Caucus soon after taking office and has talked occasionally to Jesse Jackson. He even offered his sympathies when the National Enquirer exposed the fact that only two years ago, Jackson had fathered an illegitimate child by one of his employees and had used $40,000 from one of his tax-exempt organizations to move her and the child from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles.

Echoing Clinton On Racial Profiling

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in January, Rep. Asa Hutchinson urged conservatives to enhance the Republican Party’s appeal to minorities by helping eliminate racial profiling. Hutchinson, who is on the House Subcommittee on Crime, described it as “a morally bankrupt practice” that should play no role in a policeman’s decision on whether to question, arrest or use surveillance on an individual.

In June 1999, President Clinton said racial profiling was “the opposite of good police work where actions are based on hard facts, not stereotypes.” Saying, “It is wrong, it is destructive and it must stop,” he ordered federal law enforcement agencies to collect data on the race and gender of the people they stop to question. He also declared his support for legislation to force state and local police to do the same thing. Rep. Hutchinson was echoing Clinton, who was always quick to pander to the victicrats.

Clinton was responding to the uproar created by reports of disparities in the treatment of whites and blacks by New Jersey state troopers. In 1997-98, they stopped more than twice as many white drivers for traffic violations on the New Jersey Turnpike as black drivers. But they searched only a fifth of the cars driven by whites and over half of the cars driven by blacks. This was viewed as proof that the troopers are racists, but the fact is that they searched a fifth of the whites’ cars and nearly half of the black-driven cars because there are indicators besides race that they use in trying to spot drug traffickers. One is evidence that the driver has driven a long time without stopping, because traffickers don’t like to leave their cargo unguarded.

In his Feb. 27 address to the joint session of Congress President Bush also echoed Bill Clinton. He said he had asked Attorney General John Ashcroft “to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling.” He explained, “It is wrong and we will end it in America.” Two days later, Ashcroft, whose confirmation was bitterly opposed by the victicrats, said he would give Congress six months to find ways to collect data on racial profiling by law enforcement officers and “to assess the extent and nature of such practices.” He said that if Congress didn’t act, he would launch his own study because this was such an important issue.

The Case For Racial Profiling

The effect of this is to continue the image of blacks as victims of a white racist society. This plays into the hands of the victicrats, increases bitterness and resentment, and frustrates legitimate efforts to solve black problems. John McWhorter defends racial profiling on the simple and logical ground that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

He says, “Even a police force devoid of racism, and never abusive or discourteous in stop-and-frisk encounters, would in some areas have to stop more black people than white to prevent crime effectively…All of us know that, especially since the 1980s, there has been a violent drug trade run by urban minority men. Certainly this would lead black men in certain places to be more likely to be carrying drugs.” He points out that even black police officers engage in racial profiling, targeting blacks because they know who’s committing the crimes. He asks, “How many of us could look this man [a black police officer] in the eye and tell him he should concentrate on the Latina mothers pushing baby carriages and the white Temple University professors waiting at traffic lights driving to work?”

This is a subtle reminder to those who condemn racial profiling that the police everywhere routinely practice gender profiling and age profiling. They do so for the very good reason that men commit far more crimes than women and young men commit far more crimes than senior citizens. To order New Jersey state troopers to stop ten white drivers for every black they pull over makes about as much sense as ordering them to make sure they stop one female driver for every male and one person over 65 for every two persons between 18 and 34. Only the criminals would endorse that policy, since it would greatly reduce their risk of being caught.

Prosecuting the Police

Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who now heads the Environmental Protection Agency, fired State Police Superintendent Col. Carl Williams for telling the truth in saying that minority groups are more likely to be connected to certain drug crimes. The New York Times huffed that his comments were “insensitive” toward blacks and Hispanics. This led to a major investigation of the state police and demands for hiring more members of minority groups as state troopers. Honesty was sacrificed to political correctness then, and the same thing is happening now. Gilbert Gallegos, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in 1999 that the impact of the approach being imposed on the New Jersey state troopers would be a sharp decrease in traffic stops and a sharp decrease in major arrests resulting from such stops. And this means more criminals getting away with crime.

President Bush does not agree with that. In his speech to Congress he said that in ending racial profiling, “we will not hinder the work of our brave police officers. They protect us every day, often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the confidence our police officers earn and deserve.”

On February 2, the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $12.95 million to four young men ? three blacks and a Hispanic ? because they were fired upon by two state troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1998. The troopers said they pulled the four, traveling in a van, over for speeding, and fired in self-defense after the vehicle rolled backward in the direction of one of the troopers. Three of the four were hit. The four men, who didn’t have any drugs, alleged they were pulled over because of their race and hired O.J. Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran, to represent them. Al Sharpton became their spokesman. The troopers were suspended and have been charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The settlement of this tragic but rare case was followed by a decision by New Jersey Attorney General John J. Farmer to dismiss drug and contraband charges against 128 defendants who claimed they were victims of racial profiling. Farmer admitted that the defendants, all of them drivers pulled over by the state police, were criminals who had been caught breaking the law. But he said he wanted to dismiss the charges and move on. On the other hand, troopers involved in apprehending these criminals were going to be investigated and possibly punished for using race in stopping and searching cars. Trooper David Jones, a vice president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association, commented, “Clearly the path of least resistance is to prosecute a trooper administratively rather than to prose-cute a criminal that preys on our society.”

Hate Crimes

Like racial profiling, “hate crimes” are used by the victicrats and the media to portray blacks as victims of white racist society. They want special laws to prosecute perpetrators of such crimes. The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that out of 1.7 million interracial violent crimes reported in 1997, about 1.2 million involved blacks and whites. About 90 percent of these involve a black perpetrator and a white victim. If the percent-ages of blacks and whites who commit these crimes were the same as their percentages of the total population, about 83 percent would be committed by whites. The proportions are almost the reverse of this.

The FBI has put out data that indicate that of approximately 1.2 million violent crimes involving whites and blacks, hatred was a motive in only about half of one percent of the more than a million cases where blacks attacked whites. They also say that hatred was a motive in about 1.3 percent of the approximately 120,000 violent crimes in which whites attacked blacks. To assert that whites, who commit only 10 percent of the white-black inter-racial violent crimes, are motivated by hate 2.6 times as often as blacks strains credulity.

Consider just two things: (1) the torrent of hate speech and incitement to violence against whites that comes from influential blacks, ranging from rap artists to religious leaders, and (2) the double standard that prevails in the news media in reporting violence against blacks by whites and violence against whites by blacks. The same political correctness that explains the media’s heavy coverage of white-on-minority racial crimes and their failure to treat minority-on-white crimes the same way is seen in law enforcement agencies like the FBI.

A 1999 study titled “The Color of Crime” by Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, says, “If a Mexican is assaulted for reasons of ethnicity, he is officially recorded as Hispanic. However, he becomes white if he commits a hate crime against a black. Even more absurdly, if a Mexican commits a hate crime against a white, both the victim and the perpetrator are reported as white.” The recorded hate crimes for 1997 include 636 crimes of anti-Hispanic bias, but not one of the known hate-crime offenders is recorded as Hispanic, because the FBI counts Hispanic offenders as white..

Antiwhite Hate Speech

In his book, The Myths That Divide Us, John Perazzo has provided a frightening array of inflammatory racist remarks by influential blacks. The most notorious was this from black rapper Sister Souljah in May 1992: “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Jesse Jackson said she was a voice representing “the feelings and hopes of a whole generation” of young blacks. Derrick Bell, a black Harvard law professor, has predicted that white wickedness will give rise to new black leaders who will urge that blacks “go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.”

The late Khalid Muhammad, a former aide to Louis Farrakhan, was one such leader. Perazzo says that after the unfortunate killing of Amadou Diallo by New York police in 1999, “Muhammad called the NYPD ‘an organized death corps’, and urged city blacks to kill whites in retaliation.” He added, “There’s medicine in the murder. There’s healing in the killing.”

Perazzo cites LeRoi Jones, a black poet who changed his name to Amiri Baraka. “In one of his poems,” Perazzo writes, “he asserts that blacks are justified in robbing or even killing whites, because the latter ‘already stole’ everything from the former. In the same poem, Baraka described ‘the magic dance’ of enraged blacks mugging whites in the streets. ‘Take their lives if need be, he wrote, exhorting blacks to smash ‘jellywhite faces’ and then dance in celebration of their conquest.”

The Media Double Standard

Perazzo shows that the news media try to cover up the fact that many black attacks on whites are motivated by racial hatred. The murder of six and wounding of 17 passengers on a Long Island train by Colin Ferguson on Dec. 7, 1993, is a notable example. Perazzo writes: “While all local news broadcasts that evening led with this story, and every New York newspaper gave it front-page headlines the following day, not a single report mentioned the gunman’s skin color. Clothing color, however, was somehow deemed newsworthy by the New York Times, which provided the media’s most detailed description of the shooter as ‘a husky-looking man dressed in white….Ferguson openly acknowledged that he had acted for purely racial reasons. (This) forced the media to report…not only that the gunman was black, but that every one of his victims was either white or Asian.'”

There were no reports on the literature found in Ferguson’s room, and despite his admission of his motive, a New York Times editorial said, “The usual imperative of those who would contemplate an event like (the) Long Island Rail Road massacre is to ‘make sense’ of it. While the wish is reasonable, no more sense can be made of such a thing than of a typhoon or cyclone. Forget the gunman’s declared motive of racial hatred: when someone with a semiautomatic weapon starts perforating citizens en masse, the question of motive evaporates.

Perazzo points out that no such analysis was made of the motive in “any instance of white-on-black crime in memory.” He says that in those cases, “civil rights leaders and social commentators were virtually unanimous in attributing the perpetrators’ violence to racism. Colin Ferguson was, for the most part, exempted from such charges; the slaughter he engineered was widely accepted as the bitter fruit of a crazed man’s mental imbalance.” The most important lesson the major media found in this case was that handguns are the problem, not antiwhite racism. The media gave more attention to Ferguson’s gun than to the ideas that had been planted in his head by influential blacks, helping fuel the drive for stronger gun control.

The contrast between the media coverage of this and other black-on-white murders and white-on-black murders is mind-boggling. Typically, in the black-on-white cases there is little or no national coverage of the story. If it is covered, the race of the killer is reported belatedly, if at all, and there is little or no investigation of whether or not he hates whites. If there is such evidence, the authorities try to keep it under wraps and the media refrain from doing their own investigations. These stories have no legs. They generate no public outrage and are soon forgotten. That, of course, is the objective of both the authorities and the media.

The white-on-black murders get exactly the opposite treatment. They get heavy coverage in the print and electronic media. The racial views of the perpetrators are investigated. If they are found to have a record of being antiblack, that becomes the story. It may become the story even if there no evidence to support it. The memory of the crimes are kept alive for years, and some of them even get into the history books. They generate outrage on the part of both whites and blacks, and they are added to the arsenals of those who are striving to inflame racial hatred against whites.

Howard Beach: White On Black

The death of a 23-year-old black named Michael Griffiths on Dec. 19, 1986 in the white, middle-class community of Howard Beach in Queens, New York illustrates this contrast. Perazzo devotes five pages in his book to what happened there and the aftermath. This is a brief summary.

Griffiths and two friends had car trouble and went to Howard Beach to make a phone call. They were accosted by a dozen white teenagers who shouted racial epithets and attacked them with a baseball bat and tree limbs after one of the blacks flashed a knife and returned their racial insults. One of them ran off after being hit in the head with a bat. Griffiths and the other victim were badly beaten, but they managed to escape. Griffiths ran onto a parkway, was hit by a car and killed.

This Perazzo writes: “The public clamor over this incident was deafening, the media coverage immense….Newspapers, magazines and broadcast stations across the nation examined the attack in extraordinary depth….” Demonstrations erupted, resulting in more news coverage. Mayor Ed Koch said, “This was the worst murder I believe has taken place in the modern era.” Marches and demonstrations proliferated. Blacks armed with bats attacked whites, crying, “Howard Beach.” The youths who attacked Michael Griffiths were convicted of manslaughter, since they didn’t actually kill him. Hundreds of protesting blacks blocked rush-hour traffic in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Wilkinsburg: Black On White

On March 1, 2000, John Kroll, 55, was finishing up putting a new door on the apartment of Ronald Taylor in Wilkinsburg, a small town near Pittsburgh. Taylor, irritated by how long it was taking, first threatened to kill John DeWitt, 63, who was helping Kroll install the door. Emerging with a .22 caliber revolver, Taylor shot Kroll in the chest, killing him. Unable to find DeWitt, he headed for a Burger King up the street, where he killed Joseph Healey, 71, a part-time preacher at the Christian Church.

Crossing the street to a McDonald’s, Taylor shot Richard Clinger, 56, in the head. He survived, but will never be normal. He then entered the restaurant and wounded Steven Bostard, 25, the assistant manager. He next shot and fatally wounded Emil Sanielevici, 20, who was waiting to be served at the drive-in window. He proceeded to Ross St., where he reloaded his gun and told a group of men, “I’m going down in a blaze of glory, and I’ll shoot anybody white.” All of Taylor’s victims were white.

Fleeing to a building, he threatened three white women, telling a young black, “Not you, sister. You go.” He grabbed a lady’s arm, saying, “You look like a smart, white bitch. I won’t shoot you; I’ll terrorize you.” He fled into another room, surrendering to the police a few hours later. He told the police he had some mental problems. He lived on Social Security SSI payments.

Taylor’s crimes were motivated by an intense hatred of whites. Three good men died and two were seriously injured because he hated whites who paid most of the taxes that enabled him to eat and live in subsidized housing without working. He even hated those who worked to fix his door. Antiwhite writings were found in his apartment. Those who nurtured Taylor’s hate share responsibility for the murders, but the police would not reveal their names or their messages.

There were no demonstrations to protest Taylor’s deeds, no sermons condemning blacks. Leaflets reading “Black Crime, White Victims” and urging whites to “stand up and fight” circulated in a few nearby towns. They were denounced as the product of “hate groups” seeking to exacerbate tensions. The police investigated them. At the church where the murdered Joe Healey had preached, mourners were urged to pray for Ronald Taylor too “because he’s one of God’s children.”

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or your own cards or letters to , to William Borders of The New York Times, and to an editor of your choice. Rhoda Karpatkinof Consumers Union, to William Borders of The New York Times, editor and to an of your choice.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments