The Gates of Vienna website, which concerns itself mainly with the Muslim push into Western Civilization, ran a neat posting on Sunday under the headline: "The Semiotics of Brown-on-Brown Violence."

White on White:     Normal news reportage. The incident is examined with objectivity, delving into the background of the violence and the response of the authorities, with no particular slant — unless, of course, left-wing or right-wing political views are an issue, in which case the usual media bias may be expected.

White on Brown:      The incident instantly becomes headline news, above the fold and at the top of the hour, and remains there for weeks or months. Every day the front-page analyses and crawl-ribbon snippets are crafted to demonstrate the racist motives of the perpetrators and the innocence of the victims.

Brown on White:      This news must be buried at all costs. Media outlets will hide it completely if they possibly can. If they must report on it, the race of the perpetrators will be occluded whenever practical. If the facts cannot be avoided, they will be spun to include circumstances that mitigate the racial element; e.g. it was somehow the fault of the white victims through their racist, inconsiderate, corrupt, or thoughtless behavior.

Brown on Brown:     This news is not really news, and will be largely forgotten after the first few days of video showing burning vehicles, police charges, and rubble in the street. It’s inside-pages stuff, not worth the attention of a white audience.

The only thing they missed is the compulsory statement, when reporting Category Three incidents, that "there was no apparent racial motivation" for the attack.  This ritual statement should preferentially be made by the white victim, or a close relative.   Failing that, the soothing words will be spoken by a law enforcement officer.