by Ethan Glover, Thu, Jan 08, 2015 - (Edited) Thu, Oct 20, 2016
The "NAACP bombing" is a story that's beginning to get some attention. Media outlets are starting to take note. The story is an NAACP building in Colorado was "bombed."
I put bombed in quotation marks for two reasons. First, investigators aren't sure who the target was. There is also a salon in the same building.
Second, the bomb was a bit of a failure. A gas can next to the bomb never exploded. It left some black marks on the side of the wall. Some pictures inside the building fell and broke. That's it.
The "bomb" didn't hurt anyone. It just caused some property damage. No big deal. Still, the FBI feels the need to get involved and take over the investigation.
I don't know why they need the FBI. I think they're jumping the gun on a racial terrorist angle. A chairperson for the NAACP, Julian Bond, said, "Obviously, this is a terrorist attack."
John Lewis felt the need to make this statement via Twitter:
I am deeply troubled by the bombing in Colorado. It reminds me of another period. These stories cannot be swept under the rug #NAACPBombing— John Lewis (@repjohnlewis) January 7, 2015
There are no facts on this case. There's one unidentified suspect and he's already a terrorist. For all we know, it could have been a stupid prank. Maybe not, but no one knows anything yet.
This is a minor story and not of much interest yet. I bring it up because of how it's treated.
Alternative outlets are already using this for their ramblings against the mainstream media. How they never cover anything important. Many alternative sites are ignoring the story itself. Instead, they're talking about how no one is covering it.
#NAACPBombing is actually a trending topic. Almost immediately after local news stations covered it, the mainstream picked it up.Â Vice, Time, Al Jazeera, RT, and MSNBC so far. I'd say it's getting too much attention from professional journalists. Especially, considering there's nothing to talk about at this point.
To say that the organizations who have picked it up aren't mainstream is folly too. These major publications write to large, general audiences.
Most of them have an obvious bias. Yet, they don't target a specific group like most "alternative" sites.
There's a reason alternative sites can get away with complaining about their popularity. It's because they target small minority audiences. Audiences that people ignore. That audience can resonate with the "no one is paying attention to this" message.
I of course appreciate alternative media. It's not my primary source of information. But, it's definitely my primary source of opinion reading.
My point is we don't want the mainstream to cover these issues. MSNBC and Time are already talking about the civil rights movement and white supremacy. Blowing this whole situation way out of proportion to stir up controversy.
They're talking about real racial issues. Then applying it to this failed bombing in Colorado that we know nothing about. We don't even know if the NAACP was the target.
It is nowÂ The NAACP Bombing. You may as well add an "of 2015" to the end.
Most mainstream sources are going to give a dishonest perspective on the situation. Instead, alternative sources should be trying to gather up their viewers. They should be seeking to steal from their customer base, not telling them what to report on.
You may think, "Their customer base is dumb, I don't want them." But, I would say if you want the right information to get out there, you're going to have to sell it. To reject readers based on where they're coming from is harmful to your message. It doesn't help anyone.
Many alternative media sources depend on this kind of thinking. Hating anything that's popular or "mainstream." They immediately dismiss and reject anything or anyone that isn't "libertarian enough." If it doesn't fall into that criteria, it's mainstream and worthy only of despise.
Still, these alternative sites say they need mainstream outlets to cover stories. After all, it is they who need to legitimize them. Why else would the alternative media care what the mainstream covers?
UPDATE: This story has gained a lot of traction while I was writing this. This will probably be a fairly large story within a couple days. It makes me wonder, are alternative news sites jumping on trends early, just so they can say, "No one is covering this." Or do they not understand that writing and fact checking takes time?
Don't forget to like and share this article. And sign up for the newsletter, subscribers always get a few extra thoughts and a more in-depth discussion with their comments.
What do you think? Does the alternative media play the fiddle too much? Do they play the "we're ignored" card while ignoring the real story? Let me know in the comments below!