Here is a typically uninformative article at the New York Times on anti-immigrant rioting in South Africa. As screwed up as South Africa has become since instituting majority rule, it is still many times better off than its neighbors and has attracted large numbers of illegal immigrants, chiefly from nearby Zimbabwe. What’s interesting is that the Times does not want to tell us who is perpetrating the killing, even though South Africa is an internally divided society where the meaning of anti-black violence changes significantly depending upon who is the perpetrator. My suspicions were aroused because the signature crime–lighting people on fire–has an infamous history among the black ANC and its supporters.
I had to look to other sources, but my suspicions were confirmed: this is native black South African violence being perpetrated on black immigrants. Since all of South Africa’s current problems are supposed to be rooted in the “legacy of Apartheid,” the Times felt the need to suppress this fact. It doesn’t fit the liberal script. This is nothing short of journalistic malpractice and an undeniable example of liberal bias. The story gives American readers, used to tales of white Afrikaners oppressing blacks, no context about South Africa’s current troubles. Eliding over black mismanagement of Africa is a common journalistic practice, much like the way the Times tells New York readers about violent criminals on the lam wearing “blue sweatshirts” and “red sneakers,” yet never tells would-be victims what the perpetrators look like because to do so would show when the criminals are minorities, which is a very high proportion of the time (60% black and 28% for Hispanics).