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. 

But, that's Salon.

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.

But, that's Salon.