So I looked this up to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ***. Apparently The New York Times was the only publication of record to have the term, "White Hispanic," in its stylebook. A stylebook is essentially a paper's guide to term usage, form, grammar etc. (Al Qaeda vs. Al Qaida; Mr. Obama vs. President Obama). They've used the term dating back to 1980. One story said they did a Nexus search and found only 122 instances of its usage.... EVER. This was prior to Zimmergate. I'm assuming they've at least quintupled the usage in the time since. That, my sensitive friend, is F'ing retarded; and why I say it reeks of dishonesty. Apparently Reuters runs with it now too.
For better or for worse, when someone is racially mixed, the media will choose the race by which they are associated depending on how it fits their narrative. You know if this mofo wins the Presidency, he is the "First Hispanic President;" and if he's winning some distinguished award his Hispanic heritage is getting play over his white heritage, regardless of the lifestyle to which he ascribes. Conversely, the funniest ish is if he's running from the law, you know the dispatcher is describing him a "Hispanic male in his early 30's."
I'm not saying any of this from the standpoint of me actually caring. But it's a classic case study of how irresponsible, inconsistent, and limp-dicked the media can be when handling confronting race issues. It is what is.