But,
that's Salon
It
is an insulting and illogical toy-notion that white people do not
have a legitimate place in racial discussions. Obviously, all
parties impacted by phenomena deserve inclusion in related
conversation.
Disagree
with a message? That's healthy debate. But, try to 'disappear' a
messenger? That's real ideological jack-boot stuff.
In
an essay dated 3/19, Salon.com assistant editor
Joanna Rothkopf
misrepresented an unfolding story toward just that sinister end.
"All-white
Fox news panel demands apology for school's Black History Month
event," Rothkopf's skewed essay was titled. The undraped fancy
was that only certain people had any right to speak about issues
that impact general culture.
In
the body of the piece, Rothkopf slurred "two white
Virginia parents, Rebecca and Charles, who are outraged because
their 8-year-old daughter’s school district held a Black History
Month event."
Contrary
to Rothkopf's purposely bent retelling, though, the genuine nature
of their complaint was not at all that the event itself had taken
place -- indeed, the parents objecting had encouraged their 8
year-old daughter's participation -- but that once underway, it
turned out to be festooned with non-historical, of-the-moment,
anti-police sloganeering.
(The
father is a Virginia deputy sheriff. He particularly resented the
event's hostile 'all cops are racially bigoted killers' tone,
especially given the effect that false notion could have on his
child.)
During
the Fox appearance, Rothkopf notes, the mother said, “Everywhere
that we looked were students, high school students, wearing shirts
that said ‘Black Lives Matter, I Can’t Breathe...As I was
flipping through my program, it had ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.'”
Rothkopf
does not question event organizers' character for continuing to use
that last, given that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was
determined by Eric Holder's DOJ to have been a lie. No Jonathan
Capehart, she.
To
be fair, a video clip of the parents' Fox appearance was included on
the page. And Rothkopf''s attempted smear-job, resting as it did on
a lie-foundation, can be handily put down by viewing it.
But
it is doubtful that many of her prop-drunk readers actually watched
the clip, and formed their own opinions. Most probably
swallowed the writer's foul, fictional rendering. After-essay
comments were sympathetic, some echoing the
anti-police/anti-white/pro-closed discussion sentiments expressed in
the piece.
