Pitts Targeted by White Supremacists

I'm normally a fan of Pitts' writing, but I thought he erred by framing the theme of that "Cry Me a River" article around those Knoxville murder by torture crimes. If he had used the Natalie Holloway, Joan Benet, disappearing blonde kid cases where the tabloids jump on the bandwagon as a lead-in for such a theme, he would've had an undeniable point and struck a much stronger chord of agreement with the public. It is completely unjustifiable for a missing blonde child to be entitled to more media coverage and sympathy than a missing dark-skinned child, but sadly that is the way it seems to work in this country.

However, there is also a different media double standard when it comes to interracial violent crime. One type tends to get filed away amongst the anonymous crime statistics, the other type is immensely more likely to get labeled a hate-crime and bring the activists and media running. This Knoxville case of a group of 5 people kidnapping, gruesomely torturing, and murdering two people apparently for purely sadistic purposes is about as horrrific as it gets, but I'd never heard a word about it until I read the Pitts' piece. But I suspect I would've heard plenty about this framed as a horrific hate crime if the circumstances had been flipped just a bit.

Pitt's using this particular crime as the lead-in for his "cry me a river" theme showed some insensitive judgment that he had to know was gonna provoke a hostile reaction is certain quarters (that said, there's obviously not a molecule of justification for the conduct of these pea-brained white supremacist vermin). Perhaps that was intentional to ensure the piece would get attention, I don't know.

 

Regardless, they still were able to get airtime proclaiming their innocense without years in jail.

That is somewhat unprecedented and ties into their riches. Most of us in here wouldn't have received that.

 

Chee, they got that "unprecendented" airtime because it was a huge story in the media. If the Duke case was merely a regional story in the Durham area, they wouldn't have appeared on 60 minutes or anything else.

Your problem shouldn't be with the "rich" kids...it should be with why their arrests received so much attention, why was that particular story deemed so important?

 

My "problem" is that the rightful claims of innocense the Duke kids received on air and in print w/o doing years in jail differs from other sensationalized rape cases where the victims were exhonerated after years of prison time or DNA evidence clearing them of wrongdoing.

I saw how rags like the NY Post used terms like "Wilding" and basically threw the Central Park accused under the bus despite the claims of innocence by those boys. It was a high profile case, and their parents didn't receive any air time to humanize their sons like the Duke kids did.

I don't see how the news even tempers the coverage slightly in the opposite direction like the Duke kids received.

Like I said earlier, I'm happy for those boys. But I'd be happy if everyone of any class or race received the same treatment even if mostly one-sided.

 

Chee, what TV were you watching while this was happening? I don't recall their being even a moderate rush to defend these guys, beyond their lawyers clamoring for access, among mainstream media. The media was not exonerating these guys until it became clear there likely was no crime. Big difference.

 

Chee...I don't know of any other cases that received the amount of media coverage as the Duke case did when it first broke, thats my point. It got tons of play because it was 5 upper class white kids accused of raping a black stripper, unfortunately its the type of story that sells papers.

 

I don't recall me addressing thier being a moderate rush.

But to say there wasn't a 60 minute special, up to the minute updates showing "conflicting" statements by the accuser while comparing it to other high profile rape cases when the accused are people of color or poverty stricken whose proclaims of innocence by their families didn't receive that coverage sounds like denial.

Whether you're from the "hood" or the back woods of the Appalachians, if you aren't carrying the money these kids had, you're not getting that priviledge.

I wish everyone got a piece of that.

 

Agreed with Ashy Larry on this one Chee. The story got play because of the elements of the story, which whether we like it or not, sells papers (and gets people watching). It's like a car accident. No one likes admitting they look at car wrecks with interest as they drive by, yet virtually everyone does it.

It was the elements of the story, the media, and the viewing public which exacerbated the situation, not the fact that these guys were rich.

Wish you'd get a piece of that.

 

1. I fail to see how the words "cry me a river," in or out of the context of Pitts' column, are so incendiary. These loonies probably targeted him before they even got to the end of the piece, if they ever did.

2. Someone should find the biggest, baddest black street gang in Miami and give them Mr. White's name and address, along with Mapquest directions.

 

Broadway Joe....

Think about it from this perspective. If a white family lost their children to such a horrific crime, they're not thinking about "how good they have it" as whites. They're thinking they lost their child in a terrible way. For Pitts to say "cry me a river" reads to a lot of people as, "Oh well."

You could easily make the same argument were the roles reversed. I'm just trying to explain it since you asked the question.

And you're right...that group which spread Pitts' name and personal info deserve to have their asses kicked.

 

Joe, you honestly can't see how those words might've reasonably incensed some people? And I'm not just talking about the loony white supremacist shithead fringe, just forget about those pitiful worms for a moment, and consider Pitt's piece from the perspective of a rationale non-racist person from the victims' community.

And, in doing so, keep in mind that Pitt's description is sparse on the details of how horriffic this crime was. He, for example, doesn't mention that the reason the girl was forced to drink cleaning fluid was an attempt to erase DNA evidence after days of torture and oral, vaginal, and anal rape before finally being mutilated and murdered, during which time she was also forced to watch her boyfriend be repeatedly sodomized, tortured, mutilated and burned alive.

It was one of the most shockingly brutal crimes imaginable, yet reportedly was simply ignored by the national media after it happened. And then, when a national columnist finally does discuss the crime, his message to those expressing outrage is essentially to quit whining and "cry me a river." Obviously this in no way excuses the disgusting conduct of these white supremacist shitheads, but to say you can't see how the Pitts piece could be construed by someone as "incendiary" suggests that you're not trying very hard to do so, in my opinion.

 

This is how Pitts ended his column:

"And here I'm obligated -- because I'm black -- to say that if the defendants in this case did what they are accused of doing, I'd be happy to see them rot under the jailhouse. Sadly, that needs saying because there are people who will not take it as a given.
But with that obligation fulfilled, let me add that I am likewise unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized.
Cry me a river."

I'm sorry, but the only people who should find those words incendiary are the very crackpots he was aiming them at, or people who don't read very carefully. Clearly he wasn't in any way making light of the tragedy or the grief of those who are mourning the victims. Strong opinion? Yes. Outrageous or incendiary? I don't think so.