|
August 17, 2007
"If the races were flipped, this'd be a national scandal."
Those words didn't come from a right wing commentator. They came from the Philadelphia City Paper's Brian Hickey, who's been following a murder trial which went strangely unreported in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Some black thugs deliberately targeted a total stranger simply because he was white, and fatally shot him: ....whoever pulled the trigger -- I'd vote to convict even before Wednesday morning's closing arguments -- hurt a whole lot of people more than he could harm himself by manning up. But here's what gets me as riled up as watching a dead kid's family suffer: Six black kids consciously decided to target white people for victimization, and that is no less a hate crime than dragging someone behind a pickup in Texas.The verdict was "not guilty": The announcement sent members of Pierson's family, and some of his still-young friends, into both tears and rage. In fact, a Sheriff's Officer got into a near-tussle with one of the kids outside, a near-fight that was averted when more officers, and calmer-headed relatives came outside the Criminal Justice Center.The defendant was convicted on weapons charges, however: McCall, however, was found guilty of possessing a firearm and another weapons related charge. Meanwhile, as a Daily News reporter interviewed them after the trial, Pierson's relatives, including his mother Patty Rounds, were livid. In tears, they blasted a system that let a murderer (whether it be McCall or a co-defendant who ratted him out in exchange for dropped charges) walk free. Theirs were tears of pure anger and utter frustration, as they said that nobody's being held accountable for killing their loved one in cold blood.Well, at least when he gets out, it'll be illegal for him to have a gun. Again. I have read absolutely nothing about this trial in the Philadelphia Inquirer. While there is an obituary-type entry of over a year ago, it says nothing about the fact that he was deliberately targeted for being white. To its credit, the Daily News does (although I have not seen the Daily News, so I cannot swear it appeared in the hard copy). As to what would account for the disparity in coverage, who knows? The Daily News is more of an urban paper, while the Inquirer reaches the entire metropolitan area. The Inquirer also has a much larger, national circulation. Maybe the idea is that only certain racially motivated crimes rise to the national level. The irony here is that unlike many of the crimes which are said to be hate crimes, this one involves undeniable targeting of the victim simply because of his race. Once again, I do not believe in hate crime laws. But I agree with Brian Hickey that if the races were reversed, this would be huge, huge national news. Here in the Philadelphia area, it doesn't even rate as local news (unless you read the smaller alternatives to the Inquirer). Why? Will someone please explain to me why the Inquirer will not report the news? It's probably a good thing that the Inquirer has some competition -- even in the form of a free alternative weekly. If you relied on Google News you'd think that only two news outlets were covering the Robert Pierson murder case -- the City Paper and the Inquirer. But you'd be wrong. Once again, it only appears that the Inquirer covered the story in the daily paper. Yet it isn't there. Sheesh. You'd almost think that not reporting news had become a game. UPDATE (08/18/07): Here's today's Inquirer: I've looked through it four times, and the story hasn't appeared yet in any of the sections. For would-be national scandals that can't make the local news, I guess I'll have to start relying on the small leftie alternative newspapers from now on. MORE: As to other local "coverage," I did find a deleted comment to this article in the (Wilmington, Delaware) News Journal. The comment references the Philly.com writeup, with this deleted comment still in the Google cache: Posted by: CarlsbergElephant- Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:47 amThe text of the Shaw writeup follows the deleted comment. Why it was deleted, I don't know. If that's any indication, there are probably a few more observant citizens in the area who rely on the Philadelphia City Paper or rely on the Internet. posted by Eric on 08.17.07 at 08:49 PM
Comments
I suppose keeping this story under the radar was the reason no charges were made for hate crimes; such charges would have risked wider publicity. I agree with you that the concept of extra punishment for hate is stupid. Brett · August 18, 2007 08:37 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Confabulation of fabulism?
Bussard Reactor Funded? Let's make mandatory federal ID cards constitutional the lowest common denominator keeps getting lower Merry Prankster money Victimized by dog violence? the end of violence The Big Heat Pipe In The Sky Freedom is violence! Catching up with Philadelphia gun violence
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It is my experience that reporters are generally liberal, racist, and arrogantly condescending to the reading public. The result is likely to be complete loss of credibility and a resurgence of white racism in response.