Not unless you want to know why they did it.

That information didn't come out for more than 24 hours after the attack even though it had crazy white guy written all over it. They were clearly afraid to be seen as anti-white.

Asking them is probably easier than just basing it off of a foreign name and brown skin, but hey you're the journalism expert.

lol -what a conspiracy

This whole argument that who committed the crime when writing about crime is irrelevant is so laughable I’m ****ing astonished that anyone on earth would argue that’s respectable journalism.

Fine with me. I look forward to watching the uncensored interview.

If you committed a crime and religious fundamentalist media would report that you were atheist, implying that your godless depravity is the cause of your behaviour without evidence that it is, would that be fair?

Ja that'd be a pretty ridiculous thing for anyone to claim. What made you bring that up in this conversation though?

Atheism and rabid anti-capitalism are gigantic parts of my personal identity. If it were an op ed piece the writer should be free to argue why it’s relevant.

If it’s not op ed mentioning both things as a part of my biography without further comment would be 100% appropriate. Same as my age, ethnicity, where I’m from, that I suffer from mental illnesses: All that **** answers the fundamental question: WHO.

Look. I’m not going to pussyfoot around it. I do have an anti-Muslim / Islamic agenda. It’s a **** religion and I ****ing hate it. And when they do this **** I want it reported.

Still, if you commit a serious crime and it makes the news it should be reported either way.

The issue is that you're using the crime itself as evidence of the WHY to assume the WHO off of the fumes of your own prejudice instead of championing for quality journalism as you're making it out to be.

Maybe. It’s still ****ty journalism whether I’m a bigot or not.