"The article says". Right. What about what is left out of the article? The article doesn't mention the fact that the perpetrators had shoes on. As it's not mentioned in the article, does that mean they were barefoot? They were targeting drunk white people.
Respectfully, do you need somebody to explain what a hate crime is to you?
Did you watch the video?
How about a group of people from one race ganging up and targeting somebody from another race with extreme violence?
If the terrible events in the video were being perpetrated by a gang of white men on a single black man, this event would never be off the news. It would be called a hate crime, millions of gallons of newspaper ink would be spilled on it, hundreds of thousands of articles would be written about it. It would be the scandal of the year.
Gangs of savage racist white men, attacking innocent black people.
But as it's black-on-white, somehow (maybe because we are more used to it? I don't know), it does not seem to surprise people. People maybe don't discuss it because they are not surprised? I don't know. Why do you think people are not largely discussing this attack?
Here's a simpler answer to your question: if you reverse the races in this video (so that it's a group of white guys savagely attacking a black guy), you'd create an event which would be categorically be considered a hate crime.
After all, if you saw a video of a group of white guys savagely attacking a black guy, you'd consider it hate crime, wouldn't you? I certainly would.
So that is the point -- we should demand equal outrage. We should be outraged that people in our society do this, whatever the colour of their skin. No group should get a free pass to - in a sense - "get away" with this behaviour.
Anway - that's the test really - unless you think that this single white victim here is "privileged" to be almost killed by these guys, if you can reverse the racial make-up and it "becomes" a hate crime, then you're already looking at a hate crime.