I asked: “Does the fact that a goal is less important, or that there is more time to score another, justify the selective injustice Coulibaly received?”

You answered:

…the reaction could be assigned to the different end result (US win versus US draw), different time period of the controversy (beginning of the game with 80 minutes left to play, versus end of the game with no time to correct the error) …

That’s like saying a man who kills another by the painless method of carbon monoxide is less guilty of a lesser crime than one who hacks a man to death. But wait, why didn’t I expect that from you? That’s the logic of American justice. Executing by lethal injection less barbaric than hanging, isn’t it?

And why the heck am I talking about racism in the World Cup when FIFA doesn’t even have a “SAY NO TO RACISM” campaign? Haven’t I lived in America long enough to know that racism doesn’t exit? Don’t I know that President Lyndon Johnson ended racism instantly, by the stroke of a pen when he signed the Civil Right Act more than 40 years ago?

Lastly, “Our Man in America” shouldn’t demean Americans because only they are allowed to demean others. Plus, it’s not like American correspondents are still out there demeaning Africans.

Next, you introduce the new information of the second disallowed US goal, this time by a Belgian referee and with little media scrutiny. Now, there are several explanations for this. Without saying which one is correct, or even which one Occam’s Razor would suggest, the reaction could be assigned to the different end result (US win versus US draw), different time period of the controversy (beginning of the game with 80 minutes left to play, versus end of the game with no time to correct the error), any difference in the call itself (US player called offsides, versus US goal disallowed with no explanation and with multiple penalties being committed ON US players in the penalty box), or racism (Belgian referee versus Mali referee).

To complete the bias confirmation, you ignore all the explanations except the one you already believed. The article is devoid of even an acknowledgment of competing explanations. Your editor’s note wraps the bias up beautifully, as you provide your readers with a false choice: media bias (because of racism) or (media bias created by) racism. Your call!

Note that I’m not saying you’re 100% wrong. Racism probably does play a factor! But it hurts to see someone who’s clearly talented waste that talent. Even your blog name, “Our Man in America,” which is a clever take on the demeaning western practice of “Our Man in Africa,” is still demeaning to Americans! Instead of working to fix the lingering racism of our society, you seem to be more concerned with settling scores.