A white male committing a crime drives less clicks. If a Muslim is in custody, we would be seeing more media coverage. If it’s white male in custody less coverage. Media cares about race/religion, I do not.
Maybe the reason that the news outlets are not chasing the reason for this crime is because of the race or religion of the man in question. Intra-race crimes get less clicks therefore less coverage.
I can see that mentioning race, in a reply to commit about motive was wrong. I was speaking to coverage of crime through the prism of race rather than motive. I did not intend link motive to race but I can see that it is logical interpretation but was not my intention. Apologies.
Hands up. My comment was to “coverage” of crimes though the prism of race rather than to your comment which is directly related to the lack of reporting of motive of the crime. I see that it was not appropriate. Apologies.
So you claim that being a white male is the reason, my racist “friend”?
A white male committing a crime drives less clicks. If a Muslim is in custody, we would be seeing more media coverage. If it’s white male in custody less coverage. Media cares about race/religion, I do not.
Why did you bring up the race question then? I was talking about the reasons for the assault and the lack of public explanation of those reasons.
Maybe the reason that the news outlets are not chasing the reason for this crime is because of the race or religion of the man in question. Intra-race crimes get less clicks therefore less coverage.
Oh, so you claim that those “outlets” report on the reasons in case of non-white offenders, hmm?
Inter-race crimes = more coverage = more investigative work as to motive
That’s not what he’s saying nor what happened here.
What happened is someone speculated it was a white Christian man.
That’s not reason. That’s rascism. Just because it’s against whites doesn’t mean it’s not racism.
No person should be profiles because of their skin color. no one.
I can see that mentioning race, in a reply to commit about motive was wrong. I was speaking to coverage of crime through the prism of race rather than motive. I did not intend link motive to race but I can see that it is logical interpretation but was not my intention. Apologies.
And with that, you have proven yourself as a person and not a Nazi.
So while I cannot speak for the o.p I can for my part say, no worries. Misunderstandings happen
But I claim that the reasons for these assaults have no coverage at all regardless of the race of assaulter or victims.
Hands up. My comment was to “coverage” of crimes though the prism of race rather than to your comment which is directly related to the lack of reporting of motive of the crime. I see that it was not appropriate. Apologies.