The coverage of the sniper attacks is getting comical. Especially, of course, in the hyper-p.c. New York Times. The reporting is still there, mercifully. But the tippy-toeing around the bleeding obvious is just hilarious. We now know, for example, that the Chevy Caprice was sighted, noted and suspected by cops, a total of eleven times before the alleged murderers were detained. On three occasions, the cops actually talked to the sniper and his accomplice. The reasons for not detaining or further questioining Muhammad and Malvo given by the New York Times are:
Federal, state and local officials all said there was nothing in the database to suggest that the car had been stolen or that Mr. Muhammad, one of its owners, was wanted for any crime. As a result, the officers had no reason to detain Mr. Muhammad or Mr. Malvo. Investigators also said that officers were so focused on seeking white vans and trucks that it was easy to overlook the old Caprice.
That’s fair enough. But isn’t there something missing? A senior police official has already told the Washington Post that the race of the men was a factor in letting them go. Shouldn’t this at least be investigated or even mentioned in the Times story? If the cops are now denying that they used racial profiling, that’s important. If they confirm it, that’s also important. So why won’t the Times even mention this question, let alone report on it? I think it qualifies as news that’s unfit to provide their readers. In liberal journalism today, some questions simply cannot be asked, let alone answered.
A HATE CRIME: Ditto the story by Dean Murphy, about Muhammad’s shooting of a synagogue. Remember the hue and cry over alleged white racist church burnings which turned out to be a complete crock? In most cases, the Times will call someone sneezing a hate crime if any racial or religious motivation is involved. but when a black muslim is involved, you have to tread very, very carefully. The evidence, however, is mounting:
The shooting at Temple Beth El also raises the question of whether the men, if they did the shooting, were motivated at least in part by religious intolerance. Rabbi Glickman said he was reluctant to characterize the shooting here as a hate crime, but he was troubled by Mr. Muhammad’s association with the Nation of Islam, whose leadership has been accused of anti-Semitism.
A former friend of Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo in Bellingham, Wash., where the two men were known to have stayed this year, said Mr. Muhammad sometimes spoke disparagingly about Christians and Jews. The friend, Harjeet Singh, suggested that it was perhaps not coincidental that none of the victims in the sniper attacks were obviously Muslim, for example women wearing traditional head scarves.
“In his mind, even black people were no good if they stood with whites or Christians,” said the friend, Mr. Singh, a Sikh from India, who added that Mr. Muhammad always greeted him with a traditional Muslim salutation in Arabic.
Hmmm. I wonder what his motivation was. Any idea? I particularly like the p.c. description of the Nation of Islam, a virulently anti-Semitic organization in every respect. According to the Times, only the Nation of Islam’s “leadership has been accused of anti-Semitism.” Notice the weasel words. There is no doubt whatever that the leadership of the Nation of Islam is anti-Semitic. None. Out of bizarre political correctness, the Times is even now – as it did in the 1930s – refusing to report on anti-Semitism candidly, clearly and relevantly. They should be ashamed.
The Dish 