The N&O is engaged in a form of obstruction of justice so entrenched at newspapers across the country, and institutionalized in longtime, industry-dominant â€?styleâ€? guidelines at shops like the Associated Press and the New York Times that, not unlike the upper-classesâ€™ attitude regarding their continuous criminal conspiracies violating federal immigration, tax, and labor laws through the hiring of illegal immigrants, the criminals (aka â€?editors,â€? â€?producers,â€? and â€?reportersâ€?) involved think of their acts as their birthright.
When police ask for a description of an offender, the first characteristic they ask for is his sex, followed by his race. Once they also get his height, weight, hair and eye color, identifying marks, clothing, etc., they give the description to officers and to the media for dissemination to the public. The media then typically censor the description, in order to render it worthless, so as to aid and abet the criminal, in avoiding arrest.
In the case in question, the N&O provides the following â€?descriptionâ€?:
The man had short black hair and was missing his two front teeth, according to police. He was wearing a brown jacket with a diamond pattern woven in it and blue jeans.The only reader comment so far reads thusly:
"Eye witness description is lacking fundamentals, was this person, white, yellow, red, or black?? Otherwise any hockey player minus the jacket fits the description."Every week, I either stumble upon, or readers e-mail me stories about often horrific crimes with â€?racelessâ€? victims and/or perpetrators.
[Durham police want help solving a theft, From Staff Reports, News & Observer, Published: Wed, Jan. 14, 2009 12:58PM; Modified Wed, Jan. 14, 2009 01:02PM.]
Since we are talking about at-large criminals, in every such case, the newspaper in question is, rather than helping the public, endangering it, while at the same time causing generalized paranoia, since people know that a criminal is on the loose, but have no way of identifying him and protecting themselves from him. With violent criminals, by deliberately forestalling the arrest of the offender, this criminal practice can cause additional people to be assaulted, raped, and murdered, who otherwise would never have encountered the assailant, because he would have already been caught. Such media obstruction of justice also endangers innocents who, due to willfully misleading descriptions may be misidentified as suspects or caught in the middle of an attempted wrongful arrest, and harmed or even killed. (Some subversive newspaper editors and TV news producers at times beat the censorship, by adding photographs of suspects.)
As James Fulford recounted in â€?Hate Crimes, Real Crimes, and Relevance,â€? the New York Times instituted its policy of protecting black criminals way back in 1946! Even then, the Times put loyalty to black criminals over loyalty to the law.
And in 1964, a Times reporter was forced to resign for writing the truth about a racist black Harlem gang, the Blood Brothers, which was â€?recruiting and training forces planning to kill whites.â€? When race riots then broke out in Harlem, the Times dutifully blamed the messenger, rather than the racist black gang or racist black rioters.
The reason for the loyalty to black (and increasingly, Hispanic) criminals is that journalism is dominated by white leftists and black and Hispanic racists who are joined in a war on American society. They see â€?minorityâ€? criminals variously as allies, pawns, and clients. To such alleged journalistsâ€™ devilish mind-set, the criminals are the â€?good guys,â€? and the policeâ€”at least the ones who havenâ€™t themselves gone over to the dark sideâ€”all belong in jail:
As Fulford once observed,Just as every cop is a criminal,
And all the sinners saints,
As heads is tails, Just call me Lucifer, â€?Cause Iâ€™m in need of some restraint.
[Sympathy for the Devil, by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, The Rolling Stones.]
But media blackouts on race and crime produce what Marxists call a "false consciousness".Â People don't know the facts about crime. And they can't decide on public policy because they don't have those facts.Which, of course, is the point. As far as the MSM and their education and entertainment comrades are concerned, the public isnâ€™t supposed to make informed decisions on public policy. And since they have variously suppressed the facts about race and crime, or in the case of Hollywood, turned those facts upside down, the alliance is then positioned to charge anyone complaining about minority crime with being guilty of trafficking in â€?racist stereotypes,â€? or as Joe Guzzardi put it, â€?hate facts.â€?
[Race, Relevance and the Publicâ€™s Right to Know, by James Fulford, VDARE, August 9, 2002.]
And as Fulford once pointed out, facts about criminalsâ€™ race or ethnicity are not only important to public safety, but interesting!
But â€?journalistsâ€? who always shout about â€?the publicâ€™s right to knowâ€? when they seek to sabotage a political enemy, have contempt for that same public, when it wants to know something. Media censors then declare that information off-limits, â€?irrelevant,â€? and change the subject to yet more moron fodder about entertainment delinquents. And newspaper persons wonder why, despite a population explosion, their industry has lost credibility with the public, and been in a years-long death spiral?