Newsday columnist denies media cover-up of Knoxville atrocity

David B. writes:

Last night, Michelle Malkin was substituting for Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor.” She had a three and a half minute segment on the Knoxville Atrocity. The subject was whether “reverse racism” accounted for the lack of coverage. Her guest was one Ellis Henican, a Long Island Newsday columnist and Fox News Channel contributor.

Malkin started out by saying that her experience in newsrooms told her that PC dominates the thinking in those places. Henican would have none of it. He said, “It was heavily covered in Tennessee as it should have been, but I don’t see why this warrants the coverage among thousands of other crimes you are demanding. There is no racial angle the cops say. It is not a hate crime according to the police and prosecutors. It was a dreadful, violent, cold-blooded murder and sadly it’s common enough that it isn’t big national news every time something like that happens.”

Malkin then said that newspaper editors are very reluctant to cover crimes when blacks attack whites. She mentioned the Wichita Massacre as an example, and pointed out that the Knoxville murders were ignored in contrast to “wall to wall coverage of the Duke rape case.”

Henican answered, “You must have worked with different editors from the ones I have worked with. They want a good story with a connecting narrative, maybe a good mystery that teaches a lesson with it.” Malkin then said, “You know as well as I do that these editors are infected with political correctness. There are people who do the racial bean counting in the editorial pages and news pages and this is a clear example of that.” Henican answered, “You know what I’ll do, Michelle? I’ll stick with the facts. I’ll listen to the police and prosecutors who know this case. They tell me, cold-blooded, simple murder, people already arrested. Big local story, but I’m sorry. It’s not 24 hours all across America, and it shouldn’t be. That’s a correct news judgment.”

Malkin then said that this story has reverberated across the country. “It could happen to anyone’s children. Your refusal to acknowledge that underscores my point.” Henican replied, “Why do you want to force a racial angle? I listen to the police and the families. No racial angle.” Henican shakes his head as he concludes. Malkin finishes by saying that hopefully we will keep tracking the case.

Now I should say that I think Knoxville prosecutors SHOULD downplay the racial angle for tactical reasons. Prosecutors are not supposed to make statements demonizing suspects before trial. It could result in a reversal.

Of course, Nifong DID demonize the Duke players in his 70 plus interviews. He said outright that “the rape was racially motivated.” Not many in the media criticized him for this, as you will remember.

LA replies:

Henican’s angle that this is not a “hate crime” and therefore not meriting special coverage is analogous to the position of the police and media that when a group of Muslims plan or conduct a terrorist attack in America, it doesn’t count as terrorism if they are not formally connected with a larger terrorist group. Terrorism is only terrorism if it’s part of al Qaeda or whatever. In the same way, black-on-white savagery only deserves notice if it is designated as “hate crime,” and it’s only designated as a hate crime if the perpetrators make some explicit statement, like, “I hate whites and I want to hurt you because you’re white.” Short of that, the ongoing black crime wave against whites cannot be mentioned.

Also, when are these conservatives going to stop calling black on white racial violence “reverse racism”? The very phrase implies that racism is only white on black.

Leonard K. writes:

What should we call the black-on-Asian racism? 90 degree racism? Ricochet racism?

Van Wijk writes:

You said: “Also, when are these conservatives going to stop calling black on white racial violence “reverse racism”? The very phrase implies that racism is only white on black.”

Well said. Reverse racism is itself a very racist term, as it assumes that racism is an entirely white creation (any cursory glance at La Raza or the Nation of Islam shows the folly of this argument). As to when they will stop using the term, probably around the time they cease being true-believing liberals who think whites are inherently guilty.

Dunnyveg writes:

Henican replied, “Why do you want to force a racial angle? I listen to the police and the families. No racial angle.”

Until the MSM’s story was shown to be a complete fraud, it was obsessed ad nauseam with the Matthew Shepard case. In the MSM’s worldview, this case was representative of all the “hate” innocent homosexuals suffered at the hands of heterosexuals. Read here for an account of the MSM’s deception.

Considering this obsession, are we supposed to believe the MSM was blissfully unaware that the legal system offered one of the defendants a lighter sentence for not mentioning the drug component in this case? Wasn’t the homosexual angle “forced” in this case?

My problem with the MSM isn’t so much their liberalism; such is only to be expected in a country that respects freedom of the press. My problem with the MSM is that they insult our intelligence by denying the obvious.

LA replies:

Perhaps someone would write to Michelle Malkin and suggest to her that the expression “reverse racism” ought to be dropped. In the past she stopped using another politically correct expression, “Islamism,” after its meaninglessness was pointed out to her.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 23, 2007 12:26 PM | Send