"Even though the decision to selectively report the event in Austin was "politically correct," I agree with it. No public good would be served by stirring up racial animosity between America’s black and Hispanic communities."
I understand what he means, but I have to disagree. I think the one-way ratchet needs a little equalisation. Because otherwise we're stuck with what Larry Elder calls the "let's-emphasize-racism-while-minimizing-minority-crime" bias, in which there's only one approved villain - the poor old straight white male. To tweak a quote of MLK, I cannot hold a position which is more devoted to "order" than to justice; or prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive tension which is the presence of justice.
You can imagine how the BBC would have reported it had the "US crowd" or "angry Texas crowd" been white and the victim black or Hispanic.
Locals in Austin think the police and politicians are downplaying links between the the killing and Juneteenth celebrations, which commemorate the ending of slavery in Texas. No arrests have been made despite the large number of witnesses.
Up in Milwaukee, it's an Indian immigrant, Pat Kasthurirangaian, getting the Juneteenth celebratory treatment. Not nice, but at least he's still alive.
Some thoughtful comments among the thoughtless ones at the NYT.