For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better
September 18, 2008
About a month ago, the New York Times reported that the new projected "year of minority" for whites will be 2042, instead of 2050, as previously predicted.
The next day, a vigilant Times reader telephoned the writer of the story, Sam Roberts, with a proposal. The coming minority status of whites is a huge, absolutely huge, story. The Times could fan reporters out across the country looking for reactions and thoughts to it. Whether good, bad or indifferent, there would be no shortage of opinions. "What's your opinion of it?" Roberts asked the reader, who responded that he didn't think it was a positive thing. But, the reader offered, surely there are any number of opinions on the topic, all of which would make for a hell of a story. In all seriousness, you could quote Morris Dees, David Duke, and everyone in between. Roberts agreed that it was a good idea, and promised to pass the idea along.
Thus far, the New York Times has not written such a story. And, I'm fairly confident that it will never run such a story, for reasons I'll explain below (yet if I am proved wrong, I will be very pleased). In the meantime, I found it telling that about a month later, Mr. Roberts appeared in print again, not with a story about the white view of impending minority status, but with a story suggesting that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the Jewish spies executed in 1953 for spying for the Soviet Union, were treated unfairly.
By his own admission, the Rosenberg case is an obsession for Mr. Roberts, who has written a book about it, which was adapted to a play.
I don't know whether Mr. Roberts is himself Jewish, but his deep interest in the Rosenberg case (he was "haunted" by the funeral procession outside his Brooklyn home as a small boy) and eagerness to defend the Rosenbergs certainly tracks Jewish interests. The Rosenberg case was of intense interest to Jews for many different reasons, one of which was that it exposed Jews as tending to be disloyal to the United States and favoring the Soviet Union and communism generally. So, it would serve Jewish interests for a journalist to "uncover" any information that would complicate this view, and Mr. Roberts has certainly obliged. He has been quoted as saying that the Soviet Union would have created the weapons they intended to create with or without the spying by Julius Rosenberg (as if this excuses the treason).
I am not a student of the Rosenberg case, but I do know this. What the New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Chicago Tribune runs every day is a function of two things: the stories the public expects to be covered (the presidential race, hurricanes) and what interests the reporters and editors personally. From my time as a reporter, I know that so long as you're on top of your "beat," or assigned coverage area, you've got wide latitude to poke around topics that simply interest you personally. Often, this makes for more interesting journalism, but it also clearly magnifies the interests and politics of the journalist himself or herself.
This in turn has a way of influencing the public's thinking, and eventually, public policy. By pushing his interest and slant on the Rosenberg case, Mr. Roberts wants to show that Jews are not disloyal, that "the evil system" is made up of bloodthirsty anti-Semites, and so on. And, such efforts, in the aggregate, pay off: the State Department now has a special office for monitoring anti-Semitism.
There is obviously no State Department office dedicated to anti-white policies and practices, or anti-Christian policies and practices. Yet taxpayers fitting either profile must fund the "Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism." So, if asked why it's an issue that Jews dominate the media, this is one thing I would point to.
The bottom line is that although Mr. Roberts is obligated to report the bare facts on white minority status because it's his "beat," he's not interested in the slightest in talking to actual whites on the street about how they feel about it. He's interested in talking about a perceived slight to Jews that happened a half-century ago.
As I discussed above, one of the biggest stories of the turn of the century is the coming white minority in America. Yet the major media will not do the blazingly obvious: ask whites what they think about becoming minorities. It will not do so because it is made up of white liberals who have been trained to dislike their own kind, minorities who openly dislike whites, and Jews who see whites as a dangerous threat to their very existence. To the extent that there are "conservatives" in the major media, they are de-fanged and de-clawed on racial issues.
Whether they would admit it or not, to run a story in which whites are asked what they think of becoming a minority would get whites thinking. And not in ways helpful to the white liberal, minority or Jewish causes. Because it's so obvious that being in the minority is not likely to be a good thing, encouraging whites to think about it by asking the question can only lead to negative consequences.
In other words, the less whites think about this topic, the better. "Don't rile up the white idiots," the Jewish journalist thinks. The truth is that even if a Morris Dees were quoted alongside a David Duke (and the inevitable end quote would be about how there's only one race, the human race), more whites than not would be unable to convince themselves that being in the minority would be a good thing.
I'll continue to hope that the major media provides fairer coverage of whites in America. But I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, the internet offers opportunities for whites to do an end-run around the major media — and reassuringly, it's more and more of a source for information. Stay tuned.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.