Suppose They Gave a 'Ferguson' and Nobody Came?
Here we go again. Ferguson...a place -- let's be honest -- almost no one had heard of a few months ago...is once more going to be the center of the media universe. All the usual suspects will be there -- the tedious mega-reactionaries from MSNBC, the unwatchable bores from CNN, the wildly overheated conservatives from FOX -- giving us wall-to-wall coverage of a sad but quotidian event that should have made, at best, the police blotter of the local paper.
A cop shot a violent teenager who was attacking him in his car, loaded on dope. That's national news? Oh, I forgot. The cop was white and the teenager was black? What if it was the other way around? Wouldn't even make that police blotter in a medium-sized city. In that way it's sort of like the umpteen black on black murders that permeate our urban landscape, so common but we never hear of even one on the nightly news. Not interesting. It's as if those people never existed. Talk about racism. That's the real racism, ignoring that and covering Ferguson.
Sorry, no Candy Crowley for those brothers. Candy's only interested when revolution is in the air and there is blood on the streets. But as Gil Scott-Heron informed us way back in 1970, "The revolution will not be televised." (Zo Rachel revised it later for PJTV -- see above. ) Candy will not be there for the revolution. She will only be there to cover for prevaricating presidents in foreign policy debates and, these days, if there is a revolution in the USA, it is not going to come from the left anyway. That's over. The left is too establishment to rebel now. Too old-fashioned. They can't have a revolution against themselves, can they?