Recently, there was an attack by a group of forty or more teens against a neighborhood, and one of the residents used a rifle to scare them off. Some of the people reading the article were asking why the news didn’t mention the fact that it was a group of forty black teens attacking residents of a white neighborhood, and the further alleged that if it had been a large group of white teens terrorizing a black neighborhood, it would have been the largest headline possible. Calls from the press to pass hate crime laws would have been heard. Instead, crickets.

The Chicago Tribune responded by saying:

It’s the newspaper’s sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic. 

 Really? Let’s see:

Editorial accusing people who disagree with Obama of racism.

Story accusing Arizona of racism because they crack down on illegal immigrants, who happen to be Mexican because the Mexican border is closer to Arizona than the Canadian border.

Story about how blacks do not save their money like whites do.

Story about a man charged with a hate crime for pointing at another man and calling him a name.

The Chicago Tribune fails to realize that the race of people involved with a story only becomes relevant when you report the race of the people. Ignoring the fact that an attack is racially motivated makes the race of those people irrelevant and shows your bias.

Categories: Uncategorized


Anonymous · August 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm

why would you say only fox news has biased coverage, then quote the Chicago tribune? Was that a mistype?

Divemedic · August 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm

There are frequent claims that only Fox has bias, which is proven false by the fact that bias exists in other media outlets like the Chicago Tribune

Comments are closed.