---

For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority
status, the better

Christopher Donovan

September 18, 2008

About a month ago, the New York Times reported that the new projected
"year of minority" for whites will be 2042, instead of 2050, as
previously predicted.

The next day, a vigilant Times reader telephoned the writer of the
story, Sam Roberts, with a proposal. The coming minority status of
whites is a huge, absolutely huge, story. The Times could fan
reporters out across the country looking for reactions and thoughts to
it. Whether good, bad or indifferent, there would be no shortage of
opinions. "What's your opinion of it?" Roberts asked the reader, who
responded that he didn't think it was a positive thing. But, the
reader offered, surely there are any number of opinions on the topic,
all of which would make for a hell of a story. In all seriousness,
you could quote Morris Dees, David Duke, and everyone in between.
Roberts agreed that it was a good idea, and promised to pass the idea
along.

Thus far, the New York Times has not written such a story. And, I'm
fairly confident that it will never run such a story, for reasons I'll
explain below (yet if I am proved wrong, I will be very pleased). In
the meantime, I found it telling that about a month later, Mr. Roberts
appeared in print again, not with a story about the white view of
impending minority status, but with a story suggesting that Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg, the Jewish spies executed in 1953 for spying for the
Soviet Union, were treated unfairly.

By his own admission, the Rosenberg case is an obsession for Mr.
Roberts, who has written a book about it, which was adapted to a
play.

I don't know whether Mr. Roberts is himself Jewish, but his deep
interest in the Rosenberg case (he was "haunted" by the funeral
procession outside his Brooklyn home as a small boy) and eagerness to
defend the Rosenbergs certainly tracks Jewish interests. The
Rosenberg case was of intense interest to Jews for many different
reasons, one of which was that it exposed Jews as tending to be
disloyal to the United States and favoring the Soviet Union and
communism generally. So, it would serve Jewish interests for a
journalist to "uncover" any information that would complicate this
view, and Mr. Roberts has certainly obliged. He has been quoted as
saying that the Soviet Union would have created the weapons they
intended to create with or without the spying by Julius Rosenberg (as
if this excuses the treason).

I am not a student of the Rosenberg case, but I do know this. What
the New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Chicago Tribune runs every
day is a function of two things: the stories the public expects to be
covered (the presidential race, hurricanes) and what interests the
reporters and editors personally. From my time as a reporter, I know
that so long as you're on top of your "beat," or assigned coverage
area, you've got wide latitude to poke around topics that simply
interest you personally. Often, this makes for more interesting
journalism, but it also clearly magnifies the interests and politics
of the journalist himself or herself.

This in turn has a way of influencing the public's thinking, and
eventually, public policy. By pushing his interest and slant on the
Rosenberg case, Mr. Roberts wants to show that Jews are not disloyal,
that "the evil system" is made up of bloodthirsty anti-Semites, and so
on. And, such efforts, in the aggregate, pay off: the State
Department now has a special office for monitoring anti-Semitism.

There is obviously no State Department office dedicated to anti-white
policies and practices, or anti-Christian policies and practices. Yet
taxpayers fitting either profile must fund the "Office to Monitor and
Combat Anti-Semitism." So, if asked why it's an issue that Jews
dominate the media, this is one thing I would point to.

The bottom line is that although Mr. Roberts is obligated to report
the bare facts on white minority status because it's his "beat," he's
not interested in the slightest in talking to actual whites on the
street about how they feel about it. He's interested in talking about
a perceived slight to Jews that happened a half-century ago.

As I discussed above, one of the biggest stories of the turn of the
century is the coming white minority in America. Yet the major media
will not do the blazingly obvious: ask whites what they think about
becoming minorities. It will not do so because it is made up of white
liberals who have been trained to dislike their own kind, minorities
who openly dislike whites, and Jews who see whites as a dangerous
threat to their very existence. To the extent that there are
"conservatives" in the major media, they are de-fanged and de-clawed
on racial issues.

Whether they would admit it or not, to run a story in which whites are
asked what they think of becoming a minority would get whites
thinking. And not in ways helpful to the white liberal, minority or
Jewish causes. Because it's so obvious that being in the minority is
not likely to be a good thing, encouraging whites to think about it by
asking the question can only lead to negative consequences.

In other words, the less whites think about this topic, the better.
"Don't rile up the white idiots," the Jewish journalist thinks. The
truth is that even if a Morris Dees were quoted alongside a David Duke
(and the inevitable end quote would be about how there's only one
race, the human race), more whites than not would be unable to
convince themselves that being in the minority would be a good thing.

I'll continue to hope that the major media provides fairer coverage of
whites in America. But I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, the
internet offers opportunities for whites to do an end-run around the
major media — and reassuringly, it's more and more of a source for
information. Stay tuned.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former
journalist.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-Roberts.html#Roberts