The Duke University scandal involving the alleged rape of a black exotic dancer by the white male members of the university’s lacrosse team received extensive national media coverage for years until the lacrosse players were acquitted of all charges.
Even then, professors petitioned that those who were found not guilty should not be re-admitted to the university, some of them apparently resigning in protest when suspensions were lifted.
A quick search of the New York Times web-site reveals 3,350 references to the incident.
Curiously, another recent incident at Duke elicits not a single hit at the NYT.
The associate director of the university's Center for Health Policy, a white male, was charged with sexual abuse of a minor.
This scandal has barely escaped the local newspapers.
The white male was Frank Lombard.
The minor was five years old.
The police have video-taped evidence that the perpetrator was hawking over the internet.
How could the media miss this after making such a big fuss over the lacrosse incident that wasn’t?
The child was black.
Surely the media would jump on the story of a white male university administrator sexually abusing a five-year old black child and offering that child over the internet for other deviants to have “fun” with.
The child was Frank Lombard’s own child.
This story is too sensational to pass up.
“Perv dad for fun” (as he advertised himself) sells child over internet!
No takers.
But hang on.
White father: black child? How so?
The black male child was adopted by Lombard and his gay partner.
Ahhh.
Now we can all begin understand why this incident has not evolved into a national scandal and only the homophobic, hate-filled right-wing media are covering it.
Both incidents involved white perpetrators and black victims.
The apparently more heinous one hasn’t been reported.
This raises serious issues.
How far should the media go in concealing uncomfortable news that apparently doesn’t fit an enlightened social agenda?
Should the media’s role be to re-shape our views or to report the hard facts?
Would a gay Fritzl even be reported?
The evidence suggests not.

I think you maybe jumping to conclusions.
Freedom of speech is the right to speak out, not NEWS papers *must* speak out.

Secondly, where is the public interest i.e. what good will be done by a media circus especially to the children?

All this depends on if both the males involved were prosecuted and if justice was served. More doesn't = enough or objectivity.

I put it to you if true, then this is an example of *responsible reporting*.

Your concern over other peoples' sexual wrong doing in another country, as public interest is some what concerning.

Maybe you're not looking in the right place.

>>Curiously, another recent incident at Duke elicits not a single hit at the NYT.<<

Google returned over 100,000 hits.

>>Both incidents involved white perpetrators and black victims. The apparently more heinous one hasn’t been reported.<<

Yes it has.

Most reports are along the lines that he has admitted the offence, entered a plea bargain, and will probably get a sentence of up to 15 years.

What's your point again?

>>Would a gay Fritzl even be reported? The evidence suggests not.<<

Ah, now I get it.

You are suggesting that the media are suppressing the story, because the perpetrator is gay?

You really are well on your way to becoming OLO's resident comedian, HermanYutic.

Congratulations.

Why single out America?
Look honestly at our national newspaper.
Look at its Sydney stable mate.
Both are good papers, ones I must read each day
[Sorry GY your poll would not work for me]
But both are, yes make zero mistake, are, biased and truly willing to lie to get a one sided view across.
We need to understand most news in papers is comic book entertainment, until it wants to sell a point of view, any point of view.
Facts are of no interest then.

What do we expect? To be a journalist first you need to go to brainhwash institution called Political Correct Extremism School aka University. This totalitarian sect pushes out robotic obeyers of all things easily defined to Hollywood starlets (afterall they are the spokespeople). They do not even realise the hypocrisy of their campaigns as concept is not only difficult to teach but may produce free thinkers ...now that would be a major worry!

Sorry HermanYutic the Johhny Howard School of Dog Whistling could only award you an F for your effort. Must try harder.