The Times has gone multi-orgasmic over the South Carolina shooting. But, you can't really blame them. In the recent past they've given extensive coverage to "crimes" committed by their preferred villains -- white males -- like the Duke lacrosses case, the University of Virginia rape case, and the Michael Brown shooting, most of which turned out to be not quite as advertised.
Now, they finally have a story which can't possibly backfire.
Dylann Roof is both white and male. He was motivated by racial animus, and even left a manifesto behind as proof. The victims were not only all black, they were mostly sweet old church ladies, along with a few male ministers. It was an incredibly ugly crime.
In fact, Roof not only gave the Times raw red meat to sink their teeth into, he even served them dessert in the form of his penchant for Confederate flags and his use of a handgun. He had everything they could have possibly asked for.
So, the New York Times has, predictably, gone to town.
The shooting occurred on Wednesday night. On both Friday's and Saturday's editions of the Times, there was no room above the fold on the front page for anything other than coverage of the Charleston killings. On Sunday, coverage still dominated. Today, four and a half days after the shootings, the story still merited four of the six columns above the fold.
Omar Thornton, a black employee at a warehouse in Hartford, CT, shot and killed eight white employees because of their perceived "racism" in August of 2010. (Their "racism" took the form of objecting when surveillance videos showed Thornton stealing beer from the warehouse.) The day after the killings the Times didn't even cover the story as a national news item, but only as a regional NY story. And their focus shifted almost immediately to the question of how much racism Thornton mighty have actually experienced.
The contrast in coverage is both stark and predictable.
But, you have to be happy for the Times. It's such a perfect "teachable moment" for them. Dreams really do come true.