Media Bias off the scale with (lack of) coverage of Waukesha massacre

By Rich Rostron

"Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into a treatment program, who's going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach."
2007 comment by John Chisholm, Milwaukee County District Attorney

Does the Milwaukee County District Attorney who expressed these sentiments in 2007 feel any remorse now that a man with a long criminal rap sheet, who tried to run over the mother of his own child, and who was released on a ridiculously low bail after that incident, intentionally drove his SUV at high speed through a Christmas parade, killing at least six and injuring 47?

This DA proudly takes credit for the policy embraced by other Democrat DAs around the country: setting bail absurdly low for those charged with violent crimes so they can almost always walk. But, whether he can see it or not, or whether he's willing to look, the question is whether 'when that happens,' does it invalidate the overall approach?

There are a number of individuals and families in Waukesha who don't even have to think about it; the answer is YES!!! In fact, most of us knew the answer to that question long before this incident. Most of us knew that the idea of releasing accused violent criminals with low bail was a terrible idea that wasn't going to end well.

The truth is - the evidence is already out there. We frequently hear of individuals committing additional violent crimes while out on bail. The difference is level of violence committed by Darrell Brooks in Waukesha Sunday. When six people are killed and nearly 50 others injured, even the Leftist media has difficulty ignoring the story.

What the Leftist media can do, and is doing, is to downplay the story. On the CNN Website, the story is 'below the fold' (meaning that you have to scroll down to reach it). It's in tiny print and there are 14 stories of far greater importance above it, such as:

"Trump now has a ninth-degree black belt in taekwondo, but there's a catch."

"San Francisco declares a water shortage emergency and urges residents to cut usage."

"Retailers want you to shop in stores this year (and they have a point)."

The top five stories are about the Ahmaud Arbery trial (where three white men are accused of killing a black man). The headline for the second of those stories reads "Authorities are preparing for all possible outcomes of public reaction after the Arbery trial verdict."

There are indications that the motivation driving Brooks to attack innocent parade-goers with his car was based on a reaction to the outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. But all CNN has to say about Rittenhouse is that he visited Trump in Mar-a-lago.

CNN's first headline mentioning the Waukesha attack reads "Doorbell camera captures arrest of parade killings suspect." Later, after we see the headline where Winona Ryder thinks "Keanu Reeves 'married under the eyes of God,'" and "What flight attendants want you to know about traveling right now," plus seven other headlines, we read: "Waukesha crash suspect appeared to have no emotion as officers tried to stop him, authorities say."

On MSNBC's Website, there are 29 stories on the front page and mention of the Waukesha attack is not anywhere among them. On the NBC News, it's the top news story but only after eight other featured stories, such as "FBI acknowledges for first time that some employees may have Havana Syndrome symptoms."

ABC coverage is about the same - the first mention of the story is after "Champs Elysees lit up for holiday season" and "Sand art on display at California beach." CBS News has a story about a Waukesha widower mourning his "wife of 22 years" near the top of the page and the story about doorbell camera. But there's little actual coverage of the attack anywhere else on the Home page.

Just try to imagine the coverage if a white man drove an SUV through a parade leaving blacks dead and injured in his wake. You would have to dig through multiple stories exploring every nuance of the attack, the attacker's background and possible motivations, and in-depth profiles of those who were killed or injured. The coverage should be the same either way.

Instead, the media is racially motivated in how they cover stories. In decades gone by, they may have shown that kind of bias in reverse. That doesn't justify a reversal of bias now; it justifies every effort to avoid bias now. It appears the media has learned the wrong lesson.