Goldsboro, NC — Earlier this month, a 5-year-old boy named Cannon Hinnant was tragically murdered as he played outside in his front yard. Darius Sessoms, 25, is alleged to have walked over to the little boy, put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger as Cannon’s older sisters watched in horror. Cannon’s death is every parent’s nightmare and nothing short of a heart breaking tragedy.
Adding to the tragic nature of his death, however, is the fact that the media and partisans are using his death to push and create more divide. This is irresponsible, disgusting, and speaks to the nature of media and politics in 2020.
Below are a couple of examples of how the media will twist information and use the color of skin to enrage or manipulate their viewers. In doing so with Cannon’s death, the media has convoluted the situation so much that conservatives have carried it like a torch as some sort of justification for police violence. And the disturbing part about this is the fact that had Cannon died at the hands of police, his story would have likely fallen out of the media cycle already.
One example of how the media uses race to divide the population can be seen in the screen grabs of two tweets from the Daily Beast below.
This is the problem with MSM. They use the color of skin to stoke divide and perpetuate a narrative, only when convenient. The headline on the right is the only acceptable version as it doesn't push race as a factor. But they clearly baited readers with the headline on the left. pic.twitter.com/wcgjL0lWbz
— Matt Agorist (@MattAgorist) August 13, 2020
Take note of how race is used in the headline on the left. “A white woman who was caught on video pulling a gun on a Black woman and her teen daughter in a parking lot outside a Michigan Chipotle restaurant has been charged with felonious assault,” reads the caption.
Notice how the skin color of both parties involved are prominent in this description. Then read the headline on the right. “A North Carolina man was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a 5-year-old boy while he rode his bicycle,” the Daily Beast wrote in regard to Cannon’s murder.
If race is so important in their stories, why then did they not mention it in the headline on the right? The simple answer here is that it doesn’t fit their agenda of stoking divide. The only acceptable headline is the one on the right as skin color in either of these situations is irrelevant. The color of one’s skin does not change the outcome of a murder or assault and it should only be mentioned if it was a definitive factor in the motive for the crime. Neither of these instances fit that criteria.
It’s not just the Daily Beast either. The so-called conservative media did the exact same thing but with Cannon’s death.
Just like the folks at the daily wire did. They are just as complicit in stoking racial divide as the ostensible left wing media. pic.twitter.com/k2baoU0Bjv
— Matt Agorist (@MattAgorist) August 13, 2020
This narrative whipped conservatives into a fury, who began chanting slogans similar to black lives matter. “Say his name: Cannon Hinnant,” read social media statuses across the country. The right took to the media to use Cannon’s death as a straw man and ask “why aren’t people protesting in the streets for justice for his death”?
They also falsely claimed that the media did not report on it, but they did. It was literally covered by nearly every single mainstream outlet.
While Cannon’s death is certainly tragic and horrifying, it has yet to be an injustice as the man who is alleged to have killed him has been arrested and will likely get life in prison or be put to death. He was not a member of government either. This will not bring back Cannon, but this is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do.
This is why people didn’t take the streets to protest Cannon’s death. What would they be protesting? Had his killer been given a paid vacation and police protection, rest assured, this would’ve given everyone a reason to protest — but only cops have that privilege.
If the right is so concerned with the death of children, why then did they remain silent when Kameron Prescott was killed inside of his home just before Christmas by police in Texas?
In December 2017, the Free Thought Project reported on the tragic death of 6-year-old Kameron whose life was stolen from him when police opened fire on an unarmed woman suspected of stealing a car. In June of 2018, the family of the little boy who was gunned down by police found out that the cops who killed their son all went back to work. Then, in March of last year, the family found out that none of the officers responsible for the death of her son would face charges.
Killing a child and an unarmed woman and facing no consequences is a glaring example of an injustice and it is absolutely a compelling reason to take to the streets to protest.
Jeremy Mardis, another 6-year-old boy gunned down by police was also a grave injustice. Norris Greenhouse Jr., whose father was the assistant DA at the time, got off with a slap on the wrist after murdering the child. He was sentenced to just seven years in jail. However, after doing barely two years, Greenhouse was quietly set free.
Coincidentally, when the Daily Beast covered the death of little Jeremy, they left out the skin color of those involved as it didn’t fit their narrative. Jeremy is white and Greenhouse is black so they couldn’t exploit his death to stoke racial divide.
The media and government alike want this situation to remain the same. The establishment wants us to be divided based on superficial traits like skin color. They also want people to rationalize and make excuses when cops kill children. As a result, and likely due to the fact that racial divide could not be pushed in the deaths of Kameron and Jeremy, the protests around their tragic deaths were all but non-existent.
The divide and conquer tactics have become so obvious that they are now very easy to see. Unfortunately, as this case highlights, people are painfully unaware that they are being manipulated and the results of this unawareness are not only dangerous, but detrimental to the health of society.