I HADN'T INTENDED A TRILOGY REGARDING RACIAL TENSIONS...

But... here's number three (in-a-row). I don't consider myself a racist, but I do consider myself to be informed. I've been following a website called World Net Daily (WND.com) for several years now, because they seem to keep us aware of subjects which the mainstream media apparently wants the general public to remain ignorant. Of course for the last 15 months, the BIG continuing news story has been the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

For those of you who may have been off the planet during that time, here's the story in a nutshell -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, a 17 year old black youth, was walking back from a store inside a gated community in Sanford, Florida. The gated community utilizes the "Neighborhood Watch" style of security, as opposed to the services of a professional security company.

A member of the NW, a man named George Zimmerman, was driving around the area when he spotted Martin walking through the community, up close to the houses. Martin was not known to Zimmerman as a resident thereof, so he observed Martin's progress into the community, and called 911 (there had been 8 burglaries there in the preceding 14 months, and Zimmerman thought that Martin's proximity to the houses was "suspicious"). After speaking with a police dispatcher, Zimmerman thought it prudent to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot, even though the dispatcher had said, "We don't need you to do that."(Understand that a dispatcher is not a sworn police officer, and  as such has no authority to do anything but advise, suggest, and recommend to people calling in.)

At some point during the "following", there was a physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, the state had weak-to-no facts to support their prosecution for murder or even manslaughter, and he was declared not guilty by "a jury of his peers". Significant portions of the black American community from coast-to-coast and border-to-border were upset by the verdict, and their emotions ran from disappointed to violent, law-breaking outrage (from acts of vandalism, to assaulting "white people", to invading and pillaging a WalMart in Oakland CA). The feeling seemed to be that a black man still can't get "justice" in the southern United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to the subject of  "racial tensions", and how WND.com figures into that subject. Recently I have noticed that WND has -  almost daily - reported articles on "The Knockout Game" (where roving gangs of blacks assault random whites for no reason and beat them senseless), other forms of black-on-white violence, black mobs taking over shopping malls, etc. This raised the question in my mind, "Is WND simply reporting that which the mainstream media chooses not to release to the public, or are they actually promoting and surreptitiously supporting and encouraging racial tensions?" The fact that it even raised that question for me, is an indication that WND seems to have an agenda - the problem is determining exactly what that "agenda" is. Is it accurate and honest reportage, or attempting to incite racial separation?

We know that the mainstream media either glosses over - or totally ignores - stories that have a racial undercurrent, using phrases like "Eight Youths Attack Elderly Woman" while ignoring racial identification of the either party. This is (ostensibly) designed to minimize the identification of non-whites and whites, as perpetrator or victim in an attempt to smooth over whatever existing rift may exist between the races. On one hand, that's admirable... but, on the other hand, it is not informing people that one race may have valid reasons for distrusting those of a different race. Regardless of their reasoning, I see such reporting as inarguable media bias. Manipulating the news in order to support a political viewpoint is biased reporting.

The Zimmerman-Martin case is an excellent example of what happens when the people involved are identified by race. A (white) Hispanic man kills a black teenager, is tried in and declared guilty by the media, but found not guilty by the court, and there is rioting. A black man (or group of blacks) kills a white person, and - unless that white person is a member of Congress or among the super rich - it goes on page 8 of the Podunk Times, and is never even considered for national media coverage. Why is this? Could it be because black-on-white crime is so commonplace that it isn't considered newsworthy, or is it someone's idea of supporting improved race relations... by simultaneously violating the people's right to know?

I'd like to get comments from whoever visits this blog regarding their personal take on this situation. Go the the WND website ( www.wnd.com ), once or twice a day for several days and follow their race-based reporting, then let me know how you interpret their "style". Do they seem to be even slightly racist... or is it just that they are willing to maintain a higher degree of honesty in their reporting? Somebody please let me know their thoughts, so that perhaps I can consider adjusting my own one way or the other.