But normal circumstances requires the crime to be either non-racial (white on white) or PC racial (white on black). If it had been the latter, the press coverage would have been beyond our imagination, with the racial aspects hyped to the uppermost level. President Bush would have been asked about the crime at his next press conference, and the question would have been whether or not his party's "insensitivity" to minorities might be encouraging such attacks. The 'Rat leadership would have already made such claims and 'Rat presidential contenders would have trekked to Wichita to make the claim.
Had the incident been black on black it might have gotten some press, but not much, and it would have mostly been about the poor conditions in black neighborhoods and how American society has failed to improve conditions for blacks.
But since it was black on white, the press buried it, only giving it tangential coverage months later, which downplayed the racial aspects.
It's the same PC garbage we see on crimes involving homosexuals. We've had the Matthew Sheppard murder rubbed in our face for years. There have been congressional inquiries, massive media "special reports", and even plays and films made about it. But if homosexuals rape and torture a child to death, well, it's just one of those daily local crimes that happen every so often.
Imagine someone walking into a bathroom stall and seeing "I hate whitey" or "honky" written there among all the graffiti. Would that make the national news wires????? Of course not, nor should it, but if equivalent slurs were written about blacks, we'd see a report the next day with a lurid headline: "Racist graffiti sends shock wave through community". We'd be told that similar graffiti was spotted a month ago somewhere else, so a "national pattern" was emerging. Even if it was revealed that blacks themselves wrote the slurs, the press would still cover the next such case with the same fervor and seriousness.
Why people have the audacity to deny this media bias is beyond me.
BTTT