Reuters conveniently leaves out that Chicago attackers yelled 'F*** Trump, f*** white people'

There's no ambiguity about what happened, and I'll dispense with the politically correct caution if it's all the same to you. Four angry black people - and it's about race because of their words and their deeds - held a mentally disabled white person against his will, tortured him and yelled obscenities about white people in general and Donald Trump in particular. In other words, it was a racially and politically motivated act of kidnapping and torture. Case closed. Nothing further to discuss on that issue:

Chicago investigators are questioning four African-Americans after a Facebook Live video shows a group of people torturing a white mentally disabled man while someone yelled "F*** Trump!" and "F*** white people!"

Chicago police were made aware of the video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding the young white man hostage.

That was a report from Fox 32 in Chicago. They did their jobs and actually told their viewers/readers what happened. But what's been interesting about this story is how certain details are downplayed by certain media outlets, depending on which narrative that outlet prefers to push. Here's how it sounded in Reuterville (emphasis mine):

At least one of the attackers on the video mentioned President-elect Donald Trump as he taunted the man but police stopped short of calling the beating politically motivated and said they are still investigating. The four people, who are all 18, were taken into custody but have not been formally charged, officials said. Their names were not released.

---

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson told reporters the video that surfaced on Tuesday showing the attack was "sickening." "It makes you wonder what would make individuals treat somebody like that," Johnson said. The superintendent added that the victim has "mental health challenges." In the Facebook live video which was partially broadcast on CNN and other media outlets, a man who appeared to be white was seen sitting on the ground in the corner of a room as his attackers, at least some of whom appeared to be African-American, laughed and made comments about "white people."

They "mentioned President-elect Donadl Trump"? They "made comments about 'white people'"? No. They said "F*** Trump" and "F*** white people." One doesn't have to be interested in pushing an anti-black or pro-white racial agenda (or pro-Trump for that matter) to recognize the necessity of reporting the words that were said. These are simply the facts. It's what was said. Black Lives Matter leader hit with restraining order after threatening LA police official

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

The left-wing mainstream media are very invested in the idea that, since Trump's election, we've seen a rash of white-on-black, white-on-Muslim or Christian-on-gay violence, all of which has been inspired by Trump's victory. This has emboldened right-wing haters, or so goes the narrative, to rise up and oppress minorities. It's embarrassing enough for the media that these stories have often turned out to be hoaxes. But when you get one that works in the other direction, and clearly isn't a hoax, some of the simply can't bear to admit what's really going on. There is no doubt in my mind that more than 99 percent of black people and more than 99 percent of Trump opponents would be horrified by this. Showing what really happened and being honest about the details doesn't indict either group in any way. It simply shows that certain awful people did an awful thing. But here's the problem: When it appears that a white person or a conservative or a Christian has done such a thing, the media absolutely try to portray it as indicative of a larger trend. This is absurd and usually easy to prove as such, but they push it anyway. Now they're confronted with a real incident that, if their standards applied, would show exactly the opposite - and they have no idea how to handle it. Offering the straight facts, they think, might give rise to a narrative they wouldn't like - because this is exactly how they push narratives. And by the way, media, when you leave out or downplay crucial facts that don't support your preferred narrative, yes, that qualifies as fake news. You want to define that term as everything except what you do. But you are in fact its leading perpetrator, as Reuters has demonstrated here. Dan's new novel, BACKSTOP, is a story of spiritual warfare and baseball. Download it from Amazon here