Can white people in the USA be victims of racism?

Mainstream media propagates anti-white propaganda

Question: Can white people in the USA be victims of racism?
Position‹2 of 2: Yes, white people can be victims of racism
Argument‹3 of 8›: Mainstream media propagates anti-white propaganda

As Conservative American writer Clarence McKee writes, "in today’s world of political correctness, a high-profile crime where a white is victimized by a black is not as worthy of attention and punishment as is the case when a white brutalizes a black victim." Media reports are poised to tear white criminals apart, and view white-on-black crime as clearly motivated by racist tendencies. Yet, there is nothing to suggest this is the case. It is simply a brand of infuriating propaganda that has grown out of a culture of political correctness. This double standard trickles down into society, creating an unbalanced precedent for understanding race relations.

The argument

Mainstream media actively participates in the circulation of anti-white propaganda. At the root of it is an idea called political correctness, which is when people avoid certain forms of expression that are likely to insult groups of people that are either marginalized or face discrimination. Some feel that the popularity of this idea has led to the development of some very one-sided arguments. A good example of this in action is in discussions surrounding race relations. Terry Crews, in an interview with CNN host Don Lemon, tried to caution against the Black Lives Matter movement turning into a black supremacy movement. The actor tried to share and explain his take on the matter but was constantly cut off by Don Lemon, who appeared to drown out what Terry Crews tried to say. One can make the argument that Terry Crews was repeatedly interrupted while he was talking because his message was not in line with the narrative the CNN news host wanted to promote. By not allowing Terry Crews to flesh out the pitfalls of falling into a black supremacist mindset, CNN was engaging in promoting anti-white propaganda. The New York Times also participated in this behavior, such as when editor Sarah Jeong faced little to no backlash over tweets that disparaged white people. The Times more or less stood behind Jeong saying she didn't mean what she said, in effect contributing to the spread of anti-white propaganda.

Premises

[P1]Mainstream media propagates one-sided, anti-white narratives, the argument holds, under the banner of political correctness. [P2] CNN's Don Lemon repeatedly cut off Terry Crews when his views diverged from the desired narrative, and the New York Times defended Sarah Jeong's anti-white tweets. [P3] These cases show media disparaging or silencing white perspectives. [C] Therefore, because the media victimises white people, white people can be victims of racism.

Counter-arguments

Mainstream media can promote anti-white propaganda, but not all mainstream media promote the spread of anti-white propaganda. Those that do likely do so to cultivate a specific type of viewer. Fox News is a mainstream media source, and it does not spread anti-white propaganda. Fox tries to confront the issue by speaking on it, talking about topics such as political correctness. Another factor that contributes to whether or not a mainstream media source circulates anti-white propaganda is what their political stance is. CNN arguably directs its message towards progressive viewers, which would affect what kind of message they send.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise treats 'mainstream media' as a single actor with a shared programme. The counter-argument on record makes the obvious objection: the largest outlets differ sharply in editorial line and audience, and a claim about the media as such cannot be supported by conduct at particular organisations. [Rejecting P2] Two episodes cannot establish a pattern, and neither is clean evidence. Interruption in a live television interview is ordinary broadcast practice and is applied to guests of every view; an employer declining to dismiss a staff member over past posts is an employment decision. Attributing an intention behind either — that the presenter interrupted specifically to suppress a message — is the argument's own inference, offered as though it were observed. [Rejecting P3] The inference from editorial treatment to racism is never made. Being criticised, contradicted or given unfavourable coverage is not by itself discriminatory, and the argument would need to show comparable treatment differing by race, which it does not attempt. [Rejecting C] The premises also do not reach the position. The question is whether white people in the USA can be victims of racism — a question about the concept and its application — and evidence about how particular news organisations conduct interviews does not settle it either way.