This is in answer to a question posed by Hugh Hewitt on his show today. I couldn't make it to a keyboard but then again that's why the good Lord gave us audio blogger. :) Oh, the question was why has the news coverage of the punk in Minnesota been less extensive than it was for the punks at Columbine. I recorded it at 18:21 on Tuesday the 22nd of March & it was originally posted at my blogspot blog (because it's easier for me to do the audio thing there).
Cool! It sounds like you were on the road when you did that.
Posted by: annika at March 24, 2005 08:16 AMI believe that the main reason for the difference in coverage is not race or politics, but remoteness, both physical and mental. Physically remote because this took place on an Indian reservation, not in suburban Denver. (If a school shooting were to take place in midtown Manhattan, the coverage would be astronomical.) Mentally remote because the people aren't talking, the press is being restricted in its coverage, etc. Until (not unless, but until) some enterprising reporter begins to talk about a "cover-up," coverage of this will be minor.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 24, 2005 01:44 PM