I have to use specifics though, because the general is made up of the specifies. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example, where we saw it flow through so-called civil rights leaders and pro-black parties offering a bounty, up to our black president highlighting the racial, with his ignorant comment regarding it and Holder trampling state rights and 'investigating' a case that is not federal.
But the specific doesn't disprove the general comment. There were a lot of specific facts of the Zimmerman case which led to it being a controversial case, and then the media's treatment of the story itself created controversy.
I think you're simplifying the Zimmerman case though. It didn't merely draw a line between who though a human being should have or should not have died. It was saturated with race from beginning to end. From the way it was presented early on to the edited news tapes. Sure some could straddle the line and talk reasonably, but the racial angle can't be ignored.
Of course I'm simplifying it. I already said I'm not interested in rehashing that case, and my position doesn't require that I go through all the nuance of the case to prove my point.
You're not really even disagreeing with me, you're just going deeper into my general point that controversy sells. There's a reason the media overall has political agendas and tends to spin the story through their particular view. It's because those things get their audiences to tune in.
There are numerous recent black on white crimes with obvious racial connotations that have been white-washed - the kid burned by a bunch of blacks who while doing so yelled it out as racism. The white kid on the bus, the old vet knocked to death by black thugs, this bullshit knock out game and on and on.
It seems if a white person makes the same sort of claims of racism concerning black on white crime, he or she is delusional or forcing something through a lens subjectively.
OK, what's your point?
It certainly seems the only time an assault is 'controversial' is when it's white on black and most definitely not the case vice-versa. I'm not sure who really buys it and who is having it forced on them by an untrustworthy media.
You guys all seem to be looking at these other cases through your Zimmerman lenses. There probably isn't going to be another case on that level for some time. It was a once in a one or two decade event. It's ridiculous to expect every case of inter-racial crime to be covered like that.
As another example, the OJ case was a once in a generation news-story that dominated the news cycle for months. It was black on white crime. Lots of controversy, and lots of coverage.
The fact that these big controversial cases garner more coverage than the crimes that occur everyday, whether presented with racial undertones or not, isn't remarkable.
