PC overboard - can't mention race in crime lookouts?

[Bricker]

In this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300740.html?sub=AR), which ran last week in the Washington Post, the paper's ombudsman looks at the Post's reporting of a tragic crime in which a gang of four men shot and killed two victims, separately, in the course of committing a spree of robberies.

The story reported: ...one of the robbers shot and killed Herminio Moscoso, a 26-year-old father of two, as he came to the aid of his younger brother, who had a gun put to his head by one of the four men who had surrounded him. About 15 minutes later, the men fatally shot William Everette Miller, a 46-year-old mechanic, as he tried to get away from the robbers at a gas station where he had gone to get cigarettes. After the two murders, the four men committed two more robberies that same morning.

The paper went on to report that: Police are looking for the gunmen, described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan.

However, the ombudsman's article points out that the police press release was a bit more specific: The four suspects are described as black males, possibly late teens or early twenties. One of the suspects is about 5'7", 22-25 years old, wearing a gray long sleeve T-shirt, and cornrow hairstyle. The suspects' vehicle is described as a newer model tan or beige/light colored sedan.

The Post did not report the race of assailants or the personal appearance details about one of them. When the ombudsman questioned this, he was refrred to the Post's internal style guidelines concerning race: In general, race and ethnic background should not be mentioned unless they are clearly relevant. They are obviously relevant in stories about civil rights issues, the problems or achievements of minority groups, cultural history and racial conflict. They are also relevant and should be used in crime stories when we have enough specific identifying information to publish a police description of a suspect who is being sought.

The editors in response opined that "black males, possibly late teens or early twenties," was too vague to be helpful; it described, they said, too many young men in the area to be of much use.

A reader from the area sharply disagreed. He pointed out that once you add in the kind of car they're driving, any additional descriptors are useful. And he pointed out that the police obviously think the racial information is useful enough to include in their press release, and the Post was being overly paternalistic to remove it.

I agree.

[Revtim]

If they are still on the loose, the more info the better, IMHO.

[rfgdxm]

The editor may have not seen this as a "crime lookouts" news report, but just a general crime report. Note the news report also left out "One of the suspects is about 5'7", 22-25 years old, wearing a gray long sleeve T-shirt, and cornrow hairstyle." If this was a crime lookout story, surely the height and what the suspect's shirt looked like would also be relevant.

[Renob]

I noticed that when I was reading the story, too. I found it odd because of the completely irrelevant nature of the description: ". . . described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan." That's simply not enough information to help people find the perpetrators. It appears the Post cares much more about being politically correct than actually trying to help solve a crime. I don't really expect much more out of them, frankly.

[rfgdxm]

I noticed that when I was reading the story, too. I found it odd because of the completely irrelevant nature of the description: ". . . described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan." That's simply not enough information to help people find the perpetrators. It appears the Post cares much more about being politically correct than actually trying to help solve a crime. I don't really expect much more out of them, frankly.
Or, that they were more interested in slapping a sensational story on the front page to sell papers rather than help people find the perpetrators. If it bleeds, it leads.

[Renob]

Then why put in any description of the perpetrators? As it is, they put in a half-ass description that leaves out racial details and does nothing at all to describe the men responsible. Either put it in or leave it out. Don't try to put it in but leave out the fact that the two guys who did it were black. It's not racism if the guys really were black.

[SemperFi]

The Post's policy is a partisan and presumptuous one, assuming as it does the burden of defining what is "clearly relevant" and what isn't. Even then, the arbitrary nature of these oracular pronouncements as to what is relevant is evident -- if race is "clearly relevant" to "problems or achievements of minority groups," why can't we argue that the persistence of a significant criminal underclass is a "problem" that plagues the black community (or, why is it per se irrelevant to mention race in the contexts of "problems of majority [or minority] groups" when they are targeted as victims by criminals?)?

By positing a priori definitions of when race is or is not relevant, the newspapers substitute their judgment for that of the readers, which strikes me as more than a bit arrogant. Race and ethnicity form a substantial part of who people are -- that is, how they live, how they think of themselves, how they define their relationships, and how they are perceived by others. This is never going to change -- we're always going to want to know more about both the victim and the perp in order to put the transaction in context based on our past experience. Is it "relevant" how old the victim of a crime is (outside a case of, say, child abuse)? I guess I could argue no, you're not supposed to rob anyone, whether they're 17 or 85 -- but the media do frequently report these and other personal details about perps and victims, and readers do seem to find relevance in them.

Only in a few instances (basically, race of perp and identity/sexual history of alleged rape victim) are these "incidentals" deemed per se irrelevant. The "relevance" argument quickly collapses, if you press it, into a "relevant but more prejudicial than probative" argument (not that the media would ever admit this).

I've always thought: why not let's try reporting all the basic identifying details of the victim and the perp., and let the jury (viz., readers) decide what is or isn't relevant to them, and let the chips fall where they may. Erecting artificial denials of "relevance" is patronizing. As the lawyers say, the objection goes to weight and not to admissibility.

[Metacom]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal socialist pussy, and I tend to agree with the OP.

Race is a natural and helpful thing to include in physical descriptions. Omitting it for reasons of political correctness is just stupid.

[jsgoddess]

Then why put in any description of the perpetrators? As it is, they put in a half-ass description that leaves out racial details and does nothing at all to describe the men responsible. Either put it in or leave it out. Don't try to put it in but leave out the fact that the two guys who did it were black. It's not racism if the guys really were black.

I agree. Leave the description out entirely if you feel it's too sensitive, or include it fully if you want to help find the men responsible.

I would say that the height, age, and hairstyle of the man was at least as important as his skin color for identification purposes. Skin color is pretty pointless.

[mhendo]

I agree with the OP. In a case like this, race is relevant, especially in combination with the other details the paper did give.It appears the Post cares much more about being politically correct than actually trying to help solve a crime. Well, it's not actually the job of the press to solve crimes. That's what law enforcement is for.

[Marley23]

The Post's policy is a partisan and presumptuous one, assuming as it does the burden of defining what is "clearly relevant" and what isn't.
"Partisan?" How is that partisan?

This is not unique to the Washington Post. I had to deal with the same issue for a crime lookout-type story at the newspaper where I work just a week ago - crime involved four young males, some description given for two of them, and nothing except race for the other two. They were all the same race, but when I asked if I should include that, my editor told me not to bother because it would be removed by someone else anyway. I felt this was stupid for the same reasons everyone else here does. It is less a PC issue than a 'not offending our readers' issue, I think, and "partisanship" has nothing to do with it. I would have to look through back issues to see if this policy is consistently applied, because I just looked at a newer issue and saw a suspect was described as "black."

[Bricker]

It's nice to know the Post has this incredibly high bar for the mention of race. Comforting.

Colleagues say Roberts, then a recent Harvard Law School graduate and clerk to Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, was an ideologically close fit with the other special assistants to Smith and his top appointees. The special assistants were mostly white males in their twenties who ate lunch almost daily with Smith in his private dining room and then worked late into the night to advance the administration's views.

[SemperFi]

"Partisan?" How is that partisan?
I used the word in it's broader sense (beyond its current use as Democrat/Republican party favoritism):

OED:
2. (adj.) Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan; supporting a cause, party, or person, esp. zealously or blindly; one-sided, prejudiced.

Also with unfavourable connotation: an unreasoning, prejudiced, or blindly fanatical adherent.

It seems The Post has taken sides in a contest that it perceives as taking place between a potentially-race-conscious readership and a potentially-disproportionately-ethnic perp. population by declaring that race (and in this case, we all know that this means minority race membership -- political orthodoxy rarely kicks in when the group associated with negative behavior is of the perceived ruling class) must be off the table in most crime stories. That's patronizing to both the readership and the perp. population.

[amarinth]

I tend to disagree with the OP - even in this case.

The Post article also left out the height and clothing of the one suspect, which would lead me to believe that this is more of a "what happened" story than a crimewatch story. And while race is useful if the Post is asking readers to be on the lookout for the criminals, it isn't really relevant if the post is just reporting the crime.

I know, however, that I'm biased due to one of the local papers in my area which consistently only reports a criminal's race if she or he isn't white, and then repeats the information multiple times in case the reader didn't get the point that it was one of those people who committed the crime.

[Renob]

Except in this case, apparently the Post wasn't even following its own style guidelines, as reported by the ombudsman in the first post: "They [race and ethnic background] are also relevant and should be used in crime stories when we have enough specific identifying information to publish a police description of a suspect who is being sought."

There was obviously enough information given to provide a more precise description, but the Post only chose to run with a vague description that really told nothing (except, of course, that the Post is beholden to political correctness).

[Marley23]

I used the word in it's broader sense (beyond its current use as Democrat/Republican party favoritism):
Which aspect of that definition were you saying this fits? "Prejudiced?" This instance by itself is not enough to prove to me that there's prejudice going on.

I'm in favor of putting the most information possible in the article, and they should've done that. It's true, though, that this was a full article and not a police blotter-type story.

Moving into the past for a moment...
By positing a priori definitions of when race is or is not relevant, the newspapers substitute their judgment for that of the readers, which strikes me as more than a bit arrogant.
Part of being in the news business is making judgments about what's newsworthy, interesting, and relevant. It might be arrogant, but it shouldn't be a shock.

Renob, if the Post is beholden to political correcness, why does their policy say to include race when it's relevant? Shouldn't it say something more sensitive or ambiguous? They may have made the wrong call here, but I agree with them that it's a judgment call.

[Renob]

Renob, if the Post is beholden to political correcness, why does their policy say to include race when it's relevant? Shouldn't it say something more sensitive or ambiguous? They may have made the wrong call here, but I agree with them that it's a judgment call.
Well, they obviously have a policy to include race when it's relevant, but how well do they follow it? As a casual reader of the Post, it seems to me that they tend to ignore their policy more than follow it.

Of course, as Bricker pointed out, when it comes to the mostly-white lawyers Supreme Court nominee John Roberts hung out with, race is all of a sudden relevant. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Post trying to subtly smear Roberts by planting the idea in the mind of readers that Roberts is out-of-touch with minorities. . .

[Arianne aka Hey You!]

I think that the Post should have included all relevant information about the suspects. For example, I'm fairly tall, have hip length hair, and drive a green 4-door sedan. If the suspects in a crime fit any part of my description, I have no right to complain about being stopped. That's just law enforcement doing its job, even if they stop me, an innocent person. But I'm known for being willing to be inconvenienced myself if it means helping to solve a crime.

[SemperFi]

Which aspect of that definition were you saying this fits? "Prejudiced?" This instance by itself is not enough to prove to me that there's prejudice going on.
I'd say it's indicative of "supporting a cause [or] person" in "one-sided" or "blind" fashion.

Viz., supporting the cause of succoring the presumed hurt-feelings of minority criminals/suspects whose race might otherwise be reported and give them a "bad name," vs. the cause of (1) victims who want maxmial information about the alleged perps to be disseminated in order to maximize the chances of their apprehension; and (2) the gen. pop., who may (invidiously so you say, but I claim it's invidious for the gen. pop. to pry into Brad and Jennifer's marriage, yet no one in the Washington Post internal policy division tries to stop reporters from writing about that) want to know what types and classes of persons are committing (or being alleged to commit) various crimes.

So yeah, the apodictic principle that race is "not relevant" in crime stories (except in a limited number of ID-the-perp scenarios) is a "blind" one that is motivated by favoritism for a particular cause (the cause of minorities who the papers fear will be stigmatized by (accurate) reporting of criminal perpetration trends). "Relevance" ends up being a chickenshit way to claim that some sort of lofty news judgment, rather than special-pleading, is going on here. As any lawyer knows, just about any true fact could be relevant to a jury, and it is comparatively rare for a relevance objection to be upheld, for that reason. Given that the newspapers are assuming a similarly magisterial air in informing us what is and is not relevant, perhaps they should follow the wisdom of the courts, who strongly disfavor excluding true evidence without a really good reason.

Hey, if a paper routinely prints irrelevant information that is of no use to its readers, won't they go to the paper down the street instead? But we don't have an efficient market in this regard, because all the papers have, sub silentio, agreed to pretend that certain unpleasant or controversial details are irrelevant (rather than true, but unpleasant).

[Marley23]

So yeah, the apodictic principle that race is "not relevant" in crime stories (except in a limited number of ID-the-perp scenarios) is a "blind" one that is motivated by favoritism for a particular cause (the cause of minorities who the papers fear will be stigmatized by (accurate) reporting of criminal perpetration trends).
I already dealt with this. I don't think even the Post is so socially conscious as to worry about the ramifications of printing "the suspet is a black male." It's more likely they are concerned with people getting on their ass for doing so. The bottom line comes first, and as an editor told me recently (on a different issue), no paper wants its readers to be angry at it.

[SemperFi]

I already dealt with this. I don't think even the Post is so socially conscious as to worry about the ramifications of printing "the suspet is a black male." It's more likely they are concerned with people getting on their ass for doing so. The bottom line comes first, and as an editor told me recently (on a different issue), no paper wants its readers to be angry at it.
Fine -- then the "partisanship" I allege is in favor of the paper's own convenience. Notwithstanding that Al Sharpton or a handful of others without much visible means of support might start screaming, the fact that readers historically have been interested in all the minutiae and back-story and personal details of crime stories makes me think the "relevance" excuse is just that, an insincere excuse, and from what I see in your response, you don't really disagree.

[duffer]

Well, it's not actually the job of the press to solve crimes. That's what law enforcement is for.

Of course it isn't their job to solve the crime. However, their job is to report information to the public. Think of how many crimes are solved because of tips from the public. If the Post has information that it can share with thousands and thousands of area citizens that may help identify these guys, it seems to me that it's a basic civic duty on their part to report as detailed a description as possible.

That may help the cops do their job so the editorial board doesn't have to search for them. Just a thought.

[mhendo]

Of course it isn't their job to solve the crime. However, their job is to report information to the public. I would have expected a gung-ho private enterprise type like you to be a bit more consistent about this.

Surely, as part of a private corporation, the job of the Washington Post is to sell newspapers, attract advertisers, and thus make a profit for the shareholders. That they report information to the public is really a by-product of their business existence. They have no obligation to report or not report any particular piece of information, just because you say so.

[jasonh300]

I think it's tragic in this day and age that newspapers still have to bring age into the description. Haven't these late-teen to early 20s people been opressed enough without having to use such age profiling?

My wife is in her early 20s (I'm 30something...yes, we mixed the ages...got a problem with it?) and every time she leaves the house, she has to worry about the cops picking her up because of her age.

Just the other day she got a flat tire and stopped in the middle of a retirement village. The cops were there in just minutes, asking her all sorts of questions and wanting to search the car. Sure she stuck out like a sore thumb, but she wasn't doing anything illegal. They just assumed that since she was in that neighborhood, she was going to try to score some Geritol or orthopedic shoes.

She doesn't choose to be that age, God made her that way. And just because there's a few bad people who fall into her "category" doesn't mean that she's a bad person.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal socialist pussy, and I tend to agree with the OP.

Race is a natural and helpful thing to include in physical descriptions. Omitting it for reasons of political correctness is just stupid.

I didn't know this was being done anymore. IIRC back in the 1970s the TV news announcers would omit race in descriptions of fugitives, but they haven't been doing that for some time, at least round these parts. Now they usually do say 'white', 'hispanic', 'African-American', or 'asian' as the case may be.

[duffer]

I would have expected a gung-ho private enterprise type like you to be a bit more consistent about this.

Surely, as part of a private corporation, the job of the Washington Post is to sell newspapers, attract advertisers, and thus make a profit for the shareholders. That they report information to the public is really a by-product of their business existence. They have no obligation to report or not report any particular piece of information, just because you say so.

Well, I wasn't trying to attack you in that post. Sorry I upset you so greatly.

[mhendo]

Well, I wasn't trying to attack you in that post. Sorry I upset you so greatly.You didn't upset me at all. I don't know what gave you that idea.

But you did make a statement about what the "job" of a newspaper is. I simply responded by offering an alternative view of what that job might be.

[Dead Badger]

My wife is in her early 20s (I'm 30something...yes, we mixed the ages...got a problem with it?) and every time she leaves the house, she has to worry about the cops picking her up because of her age.Slight (complete) tangent: when I was working in Texas for the summer a few years ago, I was driving to work with my landlord, who was listening to Rush Limbaugh. Rush was interviewing some airhead about something to do with minorities, and she came out with the statement "and I know all about oppression and that, cos I'm, like, a minority," and Rush asks her, "which minority group?"

She replies, "well, I'm 19, I figure that counts."

And you thought you were joking.

[you with the face]

Out of all the clues left out of the article, I think race would be least the helpful in identifying the attackers. First of all, how many black people are there in DC? Secondly, what does "black" mean in terms of describing someone's appearance?

Colin Powell is black. So is Oprah Winfrey. So is Vanessa Williams. So is Venus Williams. Describing someone as black (in a town full of black people) does not really do much to narrow down the field of potential suspects.

Seems to me there should be greater cause to get upset that the suspect's height and hair style were left out because that information actually tells you something meaningful about someone's appearance. It's obvious to me that since the most important facts were left out, the intent of the article was not to facilitate a manhut. And that's why race is not relevant.

[jasonh300]

Seems to me there should be greater cause to get upset that the suspect's height and hair style were left out because that information actually tells you something meaningful about someone's appearance. It's obvious to me that since the most important facts were left out, the intent of the article was not to facilitate a manhut. And that's why race is not relevant.

The point of my sarcastic post about age discrimination is that in this instance, "black" (or "hispanic" or "white" or "asian") is a descriptive. If you're going to leave that out, you might as well leave out gender, height, age, etc.

Which is more informative?

"A dark skinned male in his early thirties stormed into Central Bank & Trust today and demanded $100,000 in small bills."

or

"A person attempted to rob a bank of an undisclosed amount of money at some point in the past."

Why be vague about details? That's what the news is for.

[you with the face]

The point of my sarcastic post about age discrimination is that in this instance, "black" (or "hispanic" or "white" or "asian") is a descriptive. If you're going to leave that out, you might as well leave out gender, height, age, etc.

No, you "might as well not". If the intent of the article is to give the reader a brief description of the event, basic facts should suffice. You mentioned height above, but the article left out height, remember? As well as other information a lot more descriptive than race.

Which is more informative?

"A dark skinned male in his early thirties stormed into Central Bank & Trust today and demanded $100,000 in small bills."

or

"A person attempted to rob a bank of an undisclosed amount of money at some point in the past."

Why be vague about details? That's what the news is for.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but read the title of the OP. We are talking about race, not skin color. Describing someone as "black" in D.C. is able about as useful as describing someone as "Hispanic" in Mexico. In other words, not very.

[jasonh300]

Yeah, but read the title of the OP. We are talking about race, not skin color. Describing someone as "black" in D.C. is able about as useful as describing someone as "Hispanic" in Mexico. In other words, not very.

Point taken. I completely missed that.

Race IS irrelevent and meaningless unless you're doing some sort of demographic study. "Black" is not a race...although "Black" is pretty descriptive, it could be misused. It'd be wrong to describe Michael Jackson as black.

I am of the Caucasoid race. If I roll up my sleeve and show you my shoulder, it's WHITE...toward the end of the summer with a shirt on, I'm darker than a lot of "black" (of the Negroid race...is that term still used?) people I know.

[SuaSponte]

The Post's policy is a partisan and presumptuous one, assuming as it does the burden of defining what is "clearly relevant" and what isn't.

I tend to agree with the OP, but this criticism of the Post is absurd. In any story, who the hell is going to determine what is "clearly relevant," if not the paper that is publishing the story??? Should the Post conduct a poll before deciding to include a fact about Kerry's record in Vietnam in an election story? Should the Post consult with bioethicists before including statistics about abortion rates in an article on Roe v. Wade?

Deciding what is "clearly relevant" to a story is otherwise known as "the exercise of professional judgment." The Post has to make that determination, and it has to stand by it. Then the rest of us get to approve of the determination, or criticize it.

Sua

[Marley23]

(of the Negroid race...is that term still used?)
Not by polite society or people who know about genetics. ;) It's an outdated term. So is race in general, but that's another thing...