Racism at the New York Times

Let me float a proposition that should not be controversial: if you care about race more than just about anything in the world, you are a racist. New York Times, I’m looking at you.

Steve Sailer notes a striking contrast in two “news stories” that appeared yesterday in the Gray White-Hot With Rage Lady. First, this article: “White Connecticut Trooper Charged in Killing of Black Man During Stolen Car Chase.” Well, there is no doubt about the moral we are supposed to draw from that story!

But then there is this–same paper, same day: “Man Charged With Hate Crimes After Violent Attacks on Four Jews.” Hmm. What sort of man might that be? The headline doesn’t tell us. But the attacks were undoubtedly anti-Semitic:

Federal law enforcement charged a New Jersey man with hate crimes on Wednesday for a violent attack on four Jewish men, in which two were hit by a vehicle that had been carjacked from the first victim. The incident took place in and around Lakewood, N.J., which is home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States.

According to prosecutors, Dion Marsh, 27, forced a Jewish man out of his car in Lakewood on April 8, then assaulted the man and stole his car. Later that day, Mr. Marsh used a different car to intentionally hit another Jewish man, breaking several of his bones. Shortly after that, he went back to the first car and used it to intentionally hit two more Jewish men in Lakewood and nearby Jackson Township, one of whom he also stabbed in the chest with a knife.

It isn’t just the headline that is silent: you can read the entire 20-paragraph Times story without learning the race of the criminal, Dion Marsh. But Sailer had no trouble finding his photo:

Not specified in this New York Times article is Mr. Marsh’s race.

Nor is he pictured, although ten seconds of searching found his mug shot:

In contrast, the first word in the headline of the previous article is “white” and the eighth word is “black.”

Weird how that works…

When are the races of perpetrators and victims of crimes relevant? The Times standard is obvious: they are relevant if it makes whites look bad, but irrelevant if it makes blacks look bad. (Asians don’t figure, and anyway, they are nearly always victims.) In fact, when violent crimes involve blacks and whites, the black is the perpetrator and the white the victim in something like 80% to 85% of cases. I assume that most people know this through observation and experience, but maybe not. Maybe decades of misleading reporting by biased outlets like the New York Times have skewed perceptions of reality.

That, in any event, is no doubt the Times’ objective.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.