A mass shooting earlier this week was the worst incident on the New York City subway system in 40 years. The man who committed the attack has an extraordinary voluminous record online of his views, which add critical context to his motivations. And if you wanted to know what those views were, the one place you would be unable to find it was the New York Times. In fact, you found out far more about this NYC terror attack in the pages of London newspapers.
Why? The answer, it seems to me, is simple. Frank James is black. And the NYT treats crime very, very differently depending on the race of the suspect. If a white man had perpetrated this act of terror, and had online rantings about how much he hated blacks, we would be in Day Four of analysis of how white supremacist hatred fuels violence. Imagine if a white man had been yelling the following racial expletives in the streets before shooting up a subway station: “Fuck you and your black ass too, you black racist motherfucker” “Slant-eyed fucking piece of shit.” “You’re a crime against fucking nature, you Spanish speaking motherfucker.” But James said exactly that — if you replace the word “black” with “white” in the first quote.
James is obviously mentally unwell. But what’s notable about him is that this derangement is fused with black nationalism and separatism, and hatred of whites. His vicious insults against black people are because they refuse to see the genocidal motives of white people: “It’s just a matter of time before these white motherfuckers decide, ‘Hey listen, enough is enough, these niggers got to go.’” James has absorbed the anti-white narratives in the woke MSM, and sees black people as without agency and permanent under siege: “This is what white bitches and white motherfuckers expect you to be … when you blow one of their fucking brains out — this is what you asked for. This is how you wanted me to be, obviously.”
He generalizes about “white people” the way left-Twitter does: “These white motherfuckers, this is what they do … they kill and commit genocide against each other. What do you think they gonna do to your black ass?” He has picked up the critical race theory doctrine — peddled as fact by the NYT — that America was designed entirely to oppress nonwhites, from 1619 onward: “Why should a nigger be on this planet besides to pick tobacco or sugar plant. There is no natural reason for there to be such a thing as an American negro, African-American, there is no reason for it. Except for you to be a slave. That is your rightful place, it always will be.”
James is in the tradition of Louis Farrakhan: “White people and black people should not have any contact with each other … Jesus and the Bible said some dumb shit … They hate your fuckin’ guts … because they know that your rightful place is as a fucking slave … You had to force them to make you an equal.” The latter sentiment is, of course, a critical CRT doctrine: that no white people were ever instrumental in ending slavery and segregation, a narrative Jon Stewart recently honed in an episode called “The Problem With White People.”
But here’s the kicker: the NYT kept all of this from you. They excised the black nationalist background, and made it seem as if his railing against his fellow blacks proved he was not driven by 1619 ideology, and was just an equal opportunity hater. In the body of their reporting, it took two full days — after at least 21 news items comprising more than 14,000 words — to note in writing that the dude is African-American at all. Here’s the line they finally coughed up to summarize all this context:
The videos he posted frequently devolved into outbursts of homophobia, misogyny and offensive comments about Black people, Hispanic people and white people. Mr. James, who is Black, directed much of his hatred toward Black people, whom he often blamed for the way they were treated in the United States.
Notice how they manage to invert his actual ideology. They make him seem like a white nationalist! They first highlight his homophobia and misogyny (they are minor themes in the record), and never call him a racist. (Even CNN, NBC News, and MSNBC called the rhetoric “racist.”)
Now remember how the NYT covered the Atlanta shootings. There they invented a narrative of white supremacist anti-Asian hatred out of thin air — when there was nothing anywhere in the record to suggest it — and posted nine separate stories framed around that hate-crime narrative. This week, they bury reams of readily available evidence that the shooter was largely motivated by anti-white hatred, and had absorbed the prevailing CRT narrative. And still not a single op-ed or editorial on the terror attack, despite multiple opinion pieces in each of the NYC dailies. NYT: All the news that comports with CRT! Everything else buried deep.
Are these kinds of crime rare, as Nikole Hannah-Jones insisted this week? Of the 218 arrests for hate crimes in New York City last year, 103 were of African-Americans — 47 percent, compared with 24 percent of New York’s population. I wonder if James will be prosecuted as such. Or if “hate” only counts for some races and not others.
We may never know his motives.
This appears to be just as biased as the NYT he is blasting.
Another way of phrasing this would be that it was a mass shooting that managed to not kill anyone. When phrases like “mass shooting” and “worst incident in 40 years” make an appearance, the reader would be forgiven for assuming a huge body count. Yet he fails to even mention that no one was killed.
Now obviously the shooter’s intent was to leave a large body count, but for an piece which plans to argue that the news outfits are hiding facts which are inconvenient to their narrative, this is off to a bad start.
The New York Times is a very prestigious paper, so it is worthy of additional scrutiny. However once again, we have a focus on just one American newspaper while then stating that you could get better coverage in London. Had Sullivan pointed out that the coverage was better in the Washington Post or CNN then he would not leave the reader with the impression that the NYT coverage was typical of all American press outfits.
Speaking of coverage that is written in a way to protect certain viewpoints, here is what Fox “news” had to say when reporting on the gun he used in the attack.
Notice they mention the gun was bought legally, but never get around to mentioning that this was done despite the shooter constantly leaving hate filled screeds online where he spoke at length about shooting people. Also despite having been arrested 9 times on various charges including trespass, larceny, disorderly conduct, “Possession of burglary tools”, and the charmingly phrased “criminal sex act and theft of service”.
Had these been mentioned in the same article then the average Fox news reader might need to take a hard look at why a man like this can blithely walk into a store and legally purchase a gun. Rather than focus on real solutions instead we get the claim that the news is trying to hide the fact that the shooter (who’s picture is included in nearly every article) is Black.
As does your response to Sullivan’s response to the NYT’s response to the Frank James incident. Ditto my response to you. It’s tu quoques all the way down!
There’s no claim that they’re trying to hide that he is black. The claim is they’re hiding his motives because he is black, and because his anti-white views align with what we indoctrinate everyone with in our institutions.
At this point, NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Fox are pretty much in the same category: same trash, different spin.
That this guy got his gun “legally” does make a mockery of the current threshold for “legal” gun ownership. Reminds me of Jim Jeffries’ “gun control” bit from years ago…(absolutely hilarious, highly recommended if you haven’t seen it)…and the bit (you may find it a bit off color) where he pretends to be a kid with a touch of the Asperger’s going down to the docks yelling “guns! Who wants to sell me a gun!” …to try to make the point that black markets won’t necessary cater to just anyone if there were better legal barriers…of course you can debate that, but still funny as hell. Anyway, the current legal threshold is a joke.
However, I would say that Andrew Sullivan (whoever he is) should not be held to the same standard as NYT. Cuz if Sullivan is to be measured in the way we measure NYT, then what’s the point of having NYT (or Fox, or CNN, etc)? Of course, it could be argued that there already isn’t one.
Sheesh, I thought that problem was cured by changing the definition: hate is hate + white privilege ergo no POC can hate. Hate is something unique to whitey.
Yes. 10 shot tho miraculously no one killed. Would that not qualify for the ‘worst incident’ label quite legitimately? It is not fair to demand that the first sentence qualifying the incident contain all the details, both good and bad, is it? True, if the body of some article on the crime itself did not report the fact that there were zero fatalities one could charge bias, but that fails here because Sullivan is not attempting an objective reporting of the crime, he is commenting on the fact that NYT is very biased in how it handles ‘hate crimes’.
What impression you or I might take is our own affair. Sullivan makes his point accurately. What else he might have said is debatable. No opinion piece contains all possible facts and comparisons. NYT is biased. Who else is not biased is another question. Perhaps Sullivan might address that question in another piece.
The essay is not about real solutions, it is about real bias. One can write an essay about problem A irrespective of the reality of problem B. Sullivan wins his point. You are free to write an essay about some other point. A crime like this one could generate a thousand essays, all of which might raise some legitimate point and none of them should be deprecated for not making all other possible points. No score Sil.
You don’t follow Sullivan? Sheesh, minute for minute, one can hardly spend time better than reading Sullivan IMHO. The guy swims in clean water, he seems to virtually never grind an axe, his commentary is always intelligent.
I agree. @S.Cheung I think you would like reading him. Even when I disagree (which is fairly rare) he is always thought provoking. Definitely one worth checking out.
Because they are inculcated from birth to view themselves as Victims of Oppression. Since all evil is Whiteness, and since whitey cannot change his spots any more than the leopard can, the final solution is rather obvious.