Why is media ignoring race in Chris Lane murder?

Aug 21, 2013, 3:20 PM | Updated: 4:12 pm

Chris Lane, an Australian, was a college baseball player living in Oklahoma who was shot in the back while jogging. Three teens who have confessed to the crime said they killed him because were bored. (AP Photo)

(AP Photo)

Taken from the Wednesday edition of the Dori Monson Show

We’ve been following the story of the 22-year-old Australian kid, baseball player at a University in Oklahoma who was so senselessly murdered last week. He was out for a jog when three kids, 15, 16, and 17 years old, who said they were bored, shot him in the back while he was jogging and killed him by the side of the road.

It is an absolutely senseless murder. And we now have the 911 call from a woman on the street who saw him collapse. Chris Lane was gurgling after he was shot, lost consciousness quickly, and was pronounced dead by the side of the road by the time paramedics arrived.

The question that I have is: does this story, better than any other, illustrate the recklessness, the hypocrisy, and the inconsistency of most people in the media? And the reason I say that is that I don’t think race is important in this story.

I think the actions of the alleged killers is what’s important; I think the beautiful life of the victim is what’s important; the race of everyone involved – not that important.

But when it was George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, race was everything. You read the stories about this murder of this 22-year-old young man, none of them mention the race of the Australian baseball player or of the alleged killers. None of the radio reports mention the race of anyone involved.

An Australian news report captioned the mug shots as “faces of evil: the teens American police say shot our star,” while a story about the crime on CNN.com did not run any mug shots in their story.

The Huffington Post with this story: “Three boys ages 15, 16, and 17 are in custody and face a court appearance.” They don’t say anything about race.

Let me read you a couple of news stories in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting:

The Orlando Sentinel: “Zimmerman, who is white, had spotted Trayvon, who is black, in his gated community at about 7:15 p.m. In other words, race was everything to them in that story.”

ABC News: “The family of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is demanding answers after police have yet to release 911 tapes or make an arrest nearly a month after the unarmed African American teenager was shot and killed by a white neighborhood watch captain in a gated Florida community.” Race was everything in their coverage of that story.

CNN, which would not mention race in the story of the baseball player who was shot and killed, reported: “According to CNN affiliate WFTV, Zimmerman, who is white, described Martin to a dispatcher as a suspicious black man.” Again, that was a quote that was fabricated by an edit to the 911 call.

The Associated Press: “Family of slain black Florida teen hear 911 calls.” Race was everything in their coverage.

On and on it goes.

Why was race everything to the media in that story, and race cannot be mentioned in this story? Especially when one of the alleged killers has posted incredibly racist tweets. Fifteen-year-old James Edwards, on April 29, tweeted:

90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM

— jamesakabug (@JAMESAKABUG) April 29, 2013

On July 15, days after the George Zimmerman verdict, he tweeted:

Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeeee 👊👊👊

— jamesakabug (@JAMESAKABUG) July 15, 2013

Wood is a derogatory term for a white person.

So here you have someone who’s overtly racist, and the media will not mention race in this story. And again, I’m not saying they should, but it shouldn’t have been the story in the Trayvon-Zimmerman trial.

But that’s all it was about. Why is that?