Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pointing out media double standard is not “crying racism”

Pointing out media double standard is not “crying racism”

Jack Fowler of National Review Online writes about the double standard perpetuated by the media, recently at-play in coverage of the anti-Chick-fil-A activists we videotaped this week.

Fowler points out that if the situation had been reversed, there is a distinct possibility that this *might* have made the mainstream news. Further, that if the situation had been reversed, racism just might be attributed to their motives. From National Review Online:

So where are the folks who are always crying “racist,” because surely this does qualify? Watch this vile dude mock a black street preacher, in a video taken last week by my good pal Anne Sorock, who writes about the incident at Legal Insurrection. As usual: Imagine if this was a conservative doing the mocking — MSNBC would be in its fifth straight day of 24-hour coverage about right-wing bigots (well, I guess it would be hard to tell the difference).

Unfortunately some have reacted to his piece by either completely failing to see his point, or trying to distract from the double-standard argument.

Mediate’s Andrew Kirell, in a piece entitled “Gay Activist Confronts Black Preacher At Chicago Chick-Fil-A, Conservatives Cry ‘Racist,’” writes:

No, this does not qualify as racism. To be fair, I am not one of those “folks” who are always crying racism, so this isn’t my forte. However, it should be pretty clear that the preacher’s skin color has nothing to do with the fact that his religious views are upsetting to the gay activists protesting a chicken sandwich company for its views on homosexuality. Crying “racism” here is just petty and misses the point.

Earlier this morning, Kirell had tweeted a similar take on Fowler’s piece:

Fowler, however, was not crying racism or arguing that the incident was racist. Just the opposite.

The incident was not racially motivated but would have been portrayed as such if the “bearded hipster” had been a Tea Partier, conservative, or Republican. That is the standard applied when non-race-based criticism of Obama is portrayed in the media as racist.

Fowler was pointing out the media hypocrisy.

It seems like just the sort of media phenomenon Mediaite ought to investigate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

In the world of PC-ism the greatest sin is to tell the truth.

I refuse to live in that world. Truth must be told. It is society’s lodestar.

“I love how they try to call it racist…for nothing to do with race whatsoever.”

The vicious fool stumbles upon the truth.

The Left has arrogated to itself the right to say when “it” is or isn’t about race. And as it relates to the Right, it is ALWAYS about race (because we’re ALL latent racists regardless), and when it relates to the Left, well, the Left CANNOT be racists, also by categorical definition.

What a tragic waste we couldn’t find a presidential candidate who could identify the left and motivate the country into a mandate for their marginalization.

Suppose the homeless street preacher had been white. Would the harassers in the video have been more nasty or less so? I can see an argument either way.

LukeHandCool | August 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Conservatives “crying racism”???

“Coming from the bright sunlight outside into the dark PC classroom, I stumbled into the projection … err … projector … as the professor projected slide images of tea party racism on the screen at the front of the room.”

Running against a Republican? Can’t run on your record? The prospect of losing getting you down? Scared about losing all your special benefits from public service? Tired of running a civil campaign? Let me put ALL your fears to rest! Call me today and ask about my “Selling my wife’s dignity special!”
Call before 5pm and get “my honor” thrown in for FREE!

Isn’t this the old, old story…?

How many times have we seen this?

Conservative women are “men in dresses”

Black religious leaders against “gay marriage” are “astroturf”.

Conservative ANYTHING from the victim class pantheon are called the most execrable names, and the Collective’s venom is never more virulent than against them.

See, when you live in a world of delusion, you can GIVE and TAKE special class status to any individual, all depending on their ideology.

9thDistrictNeighbor | August 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm

So now we know, “racism” trumps “homophobia”.

Remember: White people are racist for disagreeing with the polices of our current black President.

Apparently if you are on the other side, white people verbally mocking and assaulting a black man is not racist.

That makes… sense.

    OK, I’m wrapping my head around being called racist for disagreeing with a black man, but what’s troubling me is learning Allen West is not really black? He’s a “white” black man? That concept’s taking longer to assimilate.

Of course it’s not racism when a white person criticizes a black person on issues that have nothing to do with race.

That’s our freakin’ point!

I swear. Some Leftists are intentionally stupid.

NC Mountain Girl | August 9, 2012 at 2:27 pm

I see the video now has over 195,000 views.

The left is very worried. There is no loss of love between many of the victim groups in their political coalition and if the percentage of blacks voting Democrat falls to 75 to 80 percent several solid blue states become red violet.

Black voters expected great things from the Obama administration but the only blacks to benefit have been federal employees and cronies playing the minority contractor game such as Obama’s best friend, the airport parking prince. In the meantime urban crime has skyrocketed. Now Obama’s new favorite friends, same sex marriage proponents, are seen heckling a poor old black dude reading his bible. That video is very dangerous to the Democrat coalition, so it must be discredited.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | August 9, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    THIS. On the money.

    (and of course she’s a North Carolinian)

      Yes! She is spot on! (But I thought she was a “tar heel”)?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to 49erDweet. | August 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm

        It’s confusing from outside the state. NC as a whole is ‘the Tarheel State’, but once here, you are socially pressured to declare yourself a fan of either UNC (Tarheels), NCSU (Wolfpack), Duke (Blue Devils), or Wake Forest (Demon Deacons). It’s an ACC thang.

        I’ve traditionally followed the Wolfpack (and NFL Panthers, NHL ‘Canes) but my youngest goes off to UNC in 2 weeks, so I’m in a pickle. (Just don’t tell anyone here in NC that my heart remains with the Wolverines, Spartans, Red Wings, and Lions back in Michigan).

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm

      But I got here via St. Paul and Chicago. When I think how extremely far left the Democrats have gotten since my youth I want to start singing “Mister, we could use a man like Hubert Humphrey again.”

    BINGO!

    A seated, elderly black man is reading his Bible and is surrounded by white men who are IN HIS FACE. The black man quietly takes it…probably because he knows better. Except for a few modern accoutrements this could have been a scene right out of Mississippi Burning.

    Show this video in your average black church and the black men in attendance, especially the older generation, will likely shake with rage.

    I’ve watched the video several times and find it is more powerful without the audio.

      Kerrvillian in reply to K. | August 9, 2012 at 7:03 pm

      Even with the sound it is a scene likely too familiar to men in the South.

      What is glossed over by the Dems and the MSM is that mainstream black voters are not sold on the idea of homosexual marriage.

      Without the sound an audience can insert their own script to interpret what is being said. With the sound an audience knows exactly what the script is and it becomes a story of gays persecuting a black man of faith.

      That sort of image could turn a lot of people the Dems used to take for granted off when it comes to voting for Obama.

      It is also not something an hispanic audience would be favoring. They, too, place more store in their faith than in Obama’s newest “enlightentment”.

      The question on my mind, however, is whether those voters will take out their frustrations on Obama or deflect it when it comes to other races.

      Will they vote for Obama and then vote for Republicans in Congress?

From the lunatic-left, d-cRAT socialist dictionary: “white racism” = anything said or done by Fox News, the Tea Party, Republicans, conservatives, or anybody that does not agree with radical, extremist, left-wing ideology, or anybody that objects to anything done by the OBOZO/pelosi regime.

From the lunatic-left, d-cRAT socialist dictionary: “black racism” or “LGBTQ&F racism” = NO DEFINITION, THOSE TERMS DO NOT EXIST

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend