In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Bolivia's Resourcefulness | Main | Clark on Rod »

November 07, 2006

Duke vs. Long Beach

Michael Blowhard writes;

Dear Blowhards --

Funny how much national coverage the Duke "rape" case has received, isn't it? After all, no crime appears to have been committed. Meanwhile, this horrifying case in Long Beach, California -- which involved three young women being beaten by a crowd of 30-40 people -- has received little but local coverage.

Now, I wonder what might explain the dramatic difference in the press's attitude towards these two stories ...



posted by Michael at November 7, 2006


Albeit it's a tasteless metaphor, but: it's the difference between man bites dog and dog bites man.

Posted by: robert on November 7, 2006 3:00 AM

Michael – Re: Funny how much national coverage the Duke "rape" case has received, isn't it? After all, no crime appears to have been committed. …I wonder how to explain the dramatic difference in the press's attitude towards these two stories ...

We could pluck under-reported news stories off the Internet all day long and attempt to make points about the media. Of course, we only know that the Duke students may be innocent because the press has continued to cover the story, most recently on “Sixty Minutes.” Oddly enough, no one, not even many law-and-order conservatives, have demanded to look at the Duke prosecutor’s other cases to see if he has previously prosecuted people on weak evidence to pad his resume. I would also suggest that prosecutorial misconduct is a serious crime, so you really can’t say that no crime has been committed.

So let’s see. In one corner, we may have liberal elites not wanting to provide national coverage with a story about racist blacks attacking whites? In another corner, we have blacks, Latinos and others complaining that saturation media coverage of stories like the Natalee Holloway case demonstrates that the media so blatantly disregards non-white (and male and unattractive) crime victims that their bias can be clearly identified as its own news genre, the “Missing white woman syndrome.” As usual, Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of this at

By the way, a follow-up to the Long Beach story in area newspapers highlights not only the viciousness of the attack, but also the courageous intervention of a passerby, who was apparently also black:

‘Already, nine girls and one boy have been arrested and charged with felony assault. But authorities said there were still more involved in the incident….

And by all accounts, it was an attack with racial overtones: The three victims, two of them 19 and one 20, are white; all of those arrested are black.

So, too, was the man who waded into the melee and rescued the women….

According to an account published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the women, whose full names were not divulged, were confronted by a group of about 12 males before and after they went through a haunted house on the street.

As the size of the crowd grew, the women were hit with lemons and small pumpkins. Then came a series of anti-white epithets and, in a matter of minutes, the women had been set upon by the crowd, while onlookers did nothing to stop the attack.

The women were beaten, one of them to unconsciousness.

One of the women was smashed in the head with a skateboard and kicked, while the other two were pummeled in the face and body.

At that point, a passerby — whose name was not released by police — started pulling attackers off the women.

"He went in there and started taking people off the dog pile," said Long Beach Police Sgt. David Cannan. "That guy was able to go in and do something others couldn't do. He stepped in. I hope he gets some recognition."’

By the way, that this incident occurred on Halloween struck a nerve with me. In Pasadena in 1993, on Halloween night, a gang retaliation resulted in the ambush of nine black children who were leaving a Halloween party carrying trick-or-treat bags. Three children were slain, and three gang members were later convicted in the killings. The children were clearly harmless and some were shot as they attempted to run or to protect themselves. Some were shot multiple times. Apparently the gang couldn’t find the people they were looking for, but then decided that they really wanted to shoot somebody.

The story did not get much play outside of Southern California. It turns out that one of my former co-workers was the aunt of one of the slain children. She and her family still deal with their grief.

So, on the one hand we have detached speculation about press attitudes. And on the other, we have the real lives, and real pain, of real people.

Posted by: Alec on November 7, 2006 6:47 AM

I don't know about dogs or man, but I'm wondering if maybe this sentence gives a clue about the lack of national coverage: "The young women asked to be identified by only their first names of Laura, Michelle and Lauren because they and their families fear for their safety."

The accusers in the Duke case were not anonymous. I don't think that's enough to entirely explain the difference, though.

Posted by: i, squub on November 7, 2006 7:51 AM

Hm. Stories like this don't fit the narrative very well, do they?

And of course, this happened in California, not the South. Where's the news and editorial hook for racial violence in Long Beach, I ask you? (As a native Southerner, I'm a bit touchy on the racist-South subject).

Posted by: Derek Lowe on November 7, 2006 9:09 AM

That's horrific. The police seem to be treatnig the assault very seriously.

Robert: That assumes that such attacks are common. Are they?

Posted by: jult52 on November 7, 2006 9:20 AM

If anyone had any doubts that justice in America is really, truly dead, they no longer do.

Posted by: Peter on November 7, 2006 9:47 AM

I think the "dog bites man" explanation goes some way towards explaining the different treatments these two cases have gotten. And Derek's "it doesn't fit the narrative" does too. It strikes me that another element may play a role too. I think that the media wanted the Duke rape accusations to be true, and that they most certainly don't want stories like the Long Beach one to be true. There may be a bit of a wish-fulfilment/denial thing going on. Probably other factors help explain it too ...

That guy who pulled the crowd off the girls certainly deserves recognition as a genuine hero ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 7, 2006 10:00 AM

As Alec said, people can cherry-pick stories and prove whatever point they want to make about the media. "The Media" is not a lumbering, singular behemoth, but a hugely multi-faceted industry with interests being either furthered or ignored on both sides. Liberals and conservatives both can make legitimate claims that their side is mis- or under-represented, depending on where they look.

The comparison between the Duke and Long Beach stories that Michael makes in an interesting one, although I don' think there is any cabalistic conspiracy behind it. It's all about selling papers. The Duke is inherently more compelling because of the race and class issues, where the Long Beach story is sadly less unexpected. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: the patriarch on November 7, 2006 10:39 AM

Obviously, the mainstream press is primarily made up of guilt ridden whites who don't want to cover stories that don't fit the template of white responsibility for black actions. Since they can't find anything obvious with which to justify black behavior in that Long Beach incident, they ignore the story. But with Rodney King, the tape was played over and over and over, driving minorities to a frenzy. Do we see a pattern here? What is the ultimate goal?

Posted by: Bob Grier on November 7, 2006 10:41 AM

It's funny, but nobody has claimed that they've covered the Duke case more than Long Beach because Duke was actually more newsworthy to a national audience. It obviously isn't. Nobody even bothers to think that the news media cares about news. It's like we just accept it. And they think the politicians have done a number on us.

Posted by: annette on November 7, 2006 10:42 AM

What's somewhat disturbing in the media's refusal to cover the Long Beach case is the fact that there's precedent for heavy media coverage of a relatively similar case. What I'm thinking of is the horrific 2000 Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York, when gangs of black and Hispanic men went on a rampage and began attacking women. While there were no actual rapes, as many as 50 women were brutally groped and fondled, with some being stripped naked in public. Most, though not all, of the victims were white.
Despite the obvious political incorrectness of doing so, most of the local media outlets provided extensive coverage of the case, complete with amateur videos of the leering attackers, and the story also got a fair amount of nationwide attention.
All I can think of, in trying to explain the curious silence surrounding the Long Beach incident, is that political correctness has gotten worse in the past six years.

Posted by: Peter on November 7, 2006 11:28 AM

jult52: No, it doesn't assume such attacks are common. Neither black on white nor white on black attacks are especially common at all.

However, US rates of violent crime by blacks are much higher than white rates. Also the old, deep-rooted stereotype of blacks is that they are more "savage" than whites. So in terms of both statistics and stereotypes, an act of violence by blacks on whites is the "dog bites man" case.

The Duke "rape" runs against the statistics on the relative violence of the races and runs counter to the deep-rooted black/white = savage/civilized stereotype. Man bites dog. And that, as the patriarch points out, moves papers.

Posted by: robert on November 7, 2006 2:25 PM

Alec -

You make a good point about media coverage of the Duke case. Not long after the initial reports much of the coverage became, if not exactly pro-defendant, at least highly skeptical of the prosecution. And that's a good thing.

On the other hand, it's not as if the media earns* any sort of privileges by occasionally doing the right thing. The media's brave performance in the Duke case does not justify its strange wall of silence around this Long Beach incident. We all learned in grade school that two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, one right doesn't cancel out a wrong.

In fairness, it is possible that the Long Beach case may yet get the nationwide attention it deserves. It's only been a week, and a cause celebre might take longer to develop. One thing which occurred to me is that if more and more people are arrested, it will be harder and harder for the national media to ignore the story. An attack by ten people, the current arrestee count, can be dismissed as ordinary urban violence; an attack by, say, 25 or 30 people, should that many be charged, looks an awful lot like a riot and practically demands attention. It's also possible that as the blogosphere keeps on top of this story the mainstream media will be compelled to follow.

In short, despite my earlier cynicism I'm still holding out a (faint) hope that justice may yet prevail.

* = I know "media" is a plural noun, but treating it as such sounds way too stilted.

Posted by: Peter on November 7, 2006 3:20 PM

The press is obviously slanted left and does whatever it can to hide or excuse as many of these black-on-white incidents as possible. Case in point: A few years ago, a young white woman was raped in my neighborhood. News reports of the incident, including the city newspaper, DID NOT give reference to the race of the rapist (or the victim) nor did they run a police sketch of the assailant. I only saw such sketches posted around my neighborhood because I lived there. Of course, the rapist was black man, and the victim was a white woman. Remember, the rapist is still at large. I cannot fathom the degree of irresponsiblity in not letting the public, even in other areas of the city, not have a description of the rapist! This stuff happens ALL THE TIME! Once I saw it the first time, I started looking for it again and again. And sure enough, this pattern repeats itself.

A great book on the subject is "Coloring the News". I forget the author's name. Many people have noticed this, both journalists themselves and commentators. Its not very new, or isolated, for that mattter, but common practice. Just like sticking blacks into every single advertisement or commercial possible, but in reverse.

This Long Beach story will die off in a very short time. Just like the story of the white schoolgirls attacked by a gang of blacks on a basketball court in New York, or the stories of the looting, rapes, and murders in New Orleans after Katrina. It will die, unlike the Duke case, because it will be deprived of sunlight.

If one were to actually look at the statistics, one would find out that blacks commit violent crime more frequently against whites than they do against blacks. I believe the figures are almost even. Whites, in contrast, commit most of their crime against other whites. Its an issue of proximity mostly-most crimes would be committed against others who live nearby. Since our society is still mostly segregated, you would expect this. However, the data shows that the blacks do hunt for white victims outside of their neighborhoods. Puncures the myth that most violent black crime is perpetrated agaisnt other blacks, doesn't it?

This is the reality. If you want to see where I get my information, read "The Color of Crime" at the site. I also get my information froom personal experience and the experiences of others. Not very PC, but the truth rarely is. Many people are looking around and seeing 40 years of wasted money and goodwill. The multicultural illusion will not last much longer. Luckily the internet provides a means of learning this information censored or mostly ignored by the media.

Posted by: Bring It On Home to You on November 7, 2006 8:44 PM

Reading this on the day after the Democrats won the elections made me wonder how long it will be until we start hearing the calls for 'Reparations Now'.

Posted by: Sam Boogliodemus on November 8, 2006 6:12 PM

Unfortunately, blogs, many of them certainly purveyors of truth, have not been given legitimacy by mainstream media. We all know why, of course, but until more of the general public seek out truth, blogs cannot have the needed affect. And, we know why a large segment of our population does not want to know the truth.

Posted by: Twaddlefree on November 8, 2006 9:04 PM

As Steve Sailer has pointed out, the main consumers of news in this country are whites, and they generally don't want to read depressing stories about the depredations of blacks in Long Beach. You don't score any points by condemning black criminals, because blacks are irrelevant to the great game of status amoung white people (except as props). In order to show your moral superiority, you need a good old fashioned Great White Defendent to deplore. If they are rich and (oh, joy!) southern, you've hit the jackpot.

Posted by: jimbo on November 9, 2006 1:50 PM

Michael said--

I think that the media wanted the Duke rape accusations to be true, and that they most certainly don't want stories like the Long Beach one to be true. There may be a bit of a wish-fulfilment/denial thing going on.


Only not just a bit. A whole hell of a lot.

Actually it worse than that. There’s actual conscious censorship going on.

Certainly since the 1960’s the MSM has regarded a large part of its mission, particularly in reporting any story regarding blacks or other “disadvantaged” races, is moral improvement of the majority white population.

Now don’t get me wrong. The earlier stages of this top down effort had salutary effects during days when segregation needed to be eliminated and bigotry was common. But it’s continued more and more stringently to all sorts of thought policing that denies or hides actual truths these days. Truths of both a scientific nature, and events in the daily news cycles.

It’s a little known fact, for example, that statistically blacks commit many times as many interracial hate crimes per capita as whites do. As well, blacks are 39x more likely to commit violent crime against whites than whites are against blacks. Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. There are more than 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks—but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the Justice Department statistics.

These are not things the MSM wants to educate people about.

They don’t want to provide fodder for the ever lurking subterranean racism of whites especially less educated ones rearing back up and retarding or reversing any of the social progress, achieved party by own efforts at “education” (a.k.a. propaganda, or at least info filtering)

Posted by: dougjnn on November 9, 2006 10:08 PM

Simply put, a lot of violence goes unreported in the smaller towns surrounding Los Angeles in part because the towns try and sweep it under the rug and the people are very passive.
And then there are editors at all of the media outlets who decide what stories to run with, the goal being to capture specific demographics and compete in the race for increasing circulation or eyeball time and ad revenues. Its just business.
The passivity of the local residents who are resigned to the growing decay of their neighborhoods and lifestyle is another matter. Maybe they are too busy working and raising a family to have the energy to get involved, instead relying on their elective governments and public agencies to "handle" it all for them.
And there is an entrenched group- think that is defined by a political correctness handed down by the elites shaping the culture 24-7 using the resources of the media, advertising, consumerism, government, and the entertainment and sports'industries.
But much of the problem can be prevented by good committed parenting and parents should be held partially accountable for their children's actions. The incredible breakdown of the American family drives much of the problem and simply replacing it with appeasement, materialism and self-absorbed narcissism on steroids is highly damaging.
The problem is deeper than race as many of these troubled youth come from at least on the surface middle class homes supervised losely by a single parent and the television. Many had very brief interactions with their fathers and know nothing of that role model. And in the inner-city-out of wedlock births are approach 80% in some areas in households of very limited means. No wonder groups of maruading youth drive around town shooting each other as they know no alternative. Nothing good can come of this.
The so called "liberal" elites are shielded from much of this and the "conservative" elites are in complete denial that what they want won't work anymore. It really comes back to the individual parent, or couple putting in the hard work over a lot of years to fill a child with the tools and values that count for civilization. The greater society needs to give them more time to do this important job balanced with the need to work more reasonable hours. Its the emotional and structured time that a parent gives a child that makes the difference, not the $145 dollar sneakers, cell phone, or computer.
The only practical solution requires us to make a choice which we value more, more time with our families or more time working to purchase a fancier car. Something has to give and clearly unbridled materialism has only made the problem worse. Perhaps the best thing one can do is get off the advertising-consumerism high speed train and reclaim more of their lives to use for their own purposes.

Posted by: Brian on November 26, 2006 1:36 PM

One day Hollywood will make a movie about the horrific, savage hate crime, but the Hollywood hooknosers will be sure to reverse the races and make the victims black and the baboon-like crowd white.

How do we even know the passerby who finally stopped the attack was black? Maybe it was a courageous white man dressed up in blackface as a negro for Hallowe'en. That is much more believable to me based on what I've seen behaviorly from American negroes.

Posted by: Dan on December 4, 2006 5:09 PM

Hmm. We must be fighting them o so backwards "evildoers" over there in Iraq, so blacks can beat your sister unconscious and rape her friends over here. It's the great neoconservative logic.

The war is at home, not in Iraq. It's no suprise the war criminal Bushstani government is sponsoring criminality everywhere in the face of us tax paying dupe "racist" "antisemitic" "anti-american" "facists" who have been convicted of the crime of not being "down wid it" by the governments swarthy NKVD thugs (who have the mandate and approval of government to attack those pale-skinned who do not need government and are therefore not sufficiently obediant) and "islamofascist" "haters" that have not harmed us and have no capacity to harm us seeing how they live 9000 miles away. George W Bush is a moronic anti-racist and is the enemy of the European American people. Forget civil war in Iraq!

As an AngloSaxonCeltic american you're in the same boat as al-Sadr, only Bush hasn't yet acquired the chutzpuh authority of his "Christian" flagwaivers and the Anti-Defimation leauge to rain white phospherous upon us paleskinned "domestic terrorists" yet.

Posted by: Ignite the Cross Once Again on December 6, 2006 3:37 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?