Why Is It Okay One Way but Not the Other?

I know you are wondering what I am talking about, so let’s take a look at the image above. This is a screenshot of headlines from one of the many news rags that is sourced by the larger news sites to fill their pages. What caught my attention was not the event of the headline but the racial implementation within.

Of the headlines listed above, is any identifying race? How many and what race? I see one in which a White man attacks a Black woman, and another in which a White teenager shoots up a party.

So, I check out the other headlines to see what’s up and discover that the two headlines that do not specify race are not White relative. One is where one Black man shot another Black man for checking out a woman neither had a relationship with. The other headline involves a young Black man that got pissed because the bus driver missed his stop and decided to beat him for it, endangering everyone on the bus, the community, and other traffic.

Why is it appropriate that headlines noted Whiter people, but not Black people? The first notes a White man tackling a Black woman. Shouldn’t the headline say “man tackles woman . . .”? The rest are simply an offense to Journalism. Who is making the rules in news editing today? Who decided that identifying White people involved in criminal conduct was okay, but not important to note other races?

Why is it okay one way but not the other? Why is it okay for Whites to be called “Cracker or Honky” but not okay to use the N-word referencing Blacks? ( I am not suggesting either acceptable, just asking the question.)

Resolving racism requires equality and respect. This should require being color blind to all races or to none. But, I don’t make the rules . . .