Per the Pilot a mob of "at least 100" black youths beat up two white reporters, who missed a week of work as a result. One of them found this exchange on Twitter the next day:
"I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light," wrote one person.
"I don't," wrote another, indicating laughter. "(do it for trayvon martin)"
DaTechGuy notes that the Pilot had not stinted in their prior coverge of the Martin shooting. So why so coy now?
Let me continue to bury my lead while I reprise the hand-wringing at the VP:
In this case, editors hesitated to assign a story about their own employees. Would it seem like the paper treated its employees differently from other crime victims?
Oh, please. Left unmentioned - it was just a few weeks earlier (last March 30) that Maurice Jones, the publisher of the Virginian-Pilot was finally confirmed as Obama's Deputy Secretary of HUD after a six month wait.
Obviously this crime was a local, not federal matter. Still, the national media does not seem in a hurry to cover the black-on-white "Justice for Trayvon" violence that has a possible connection to the kid that would have looked like Obama's son. And it may be that the news judgment of the Pilot was shaded by a desire to spare their old boss from having to explain to his new bosses just what a symbol that hypothetical son had become.
Owens notes that the story was not reported as a news story, just as an opinion piece. He also says 15 whites have been assaulted by black gangs in what most authorities have called "not-a-hate crime" attacks in revenge for Trayvon Martin. This shows why so-called "hate crime" laws need to be repealed, because equal protection under the law does not exist.
It's not suprising the coverage is slanted, as how members of the media always find a job in the Regime, and how such a relationship slants the coverage.