Is there a journalistic standard for reporting skin color of a suspect?

[What the .... ?!?!]

This weekend, in my local paper, there was a story on a robbery of a grocery store. In back-to-back sentences they left out the color of the suspects' skin yet reported that the getaway vehicle was a white Cadillac.

Kind of struck me as odd. Is there a standard for reporting the skin color of a suspect?

[guizot]

There is a standard, and it's something like this: mention the race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. of a person only when it is relevant.

The getaway car wasn't a person, so the standard was different.

[Fiveyearlurker]

[QUOTE=guizot]There is a standard, and it's something like this: mention the race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. of a person only when it is relevant.

[/QUOTE

Isn't race relevant when we're talking about an escaped suspect? I mean it would narrow it down to know, right?

[Renob]

The standard is that most newspapers won't do it because of political correctness.

[Miller]

Isn't race relevant when we're talking about an escaped suspect? I mean it would narrow it down to know, right?

If the cops are still looking for him, yes. If they've already caught him, no. It's not clear if the story the OP is talking about is about criminals still at large, or criminals who have already been apprehended.

[Sarahfeena]

If the cops are still looking for him, yes. If they've already caught him, no. It's not clear if the story the OP is talking about is about criminals still at large, or criminals who have already been apprehended. If he was already apprehended, the color of the car is irrelevant as well. :)

[Revenant Threshold]

If he was already apprehended, the color of the car is irrelevant as well. :) Well, the robber may have been apprehended at some later point, but the car (or the getaway driver, if there was one) might not have been.

[Fiveyearlurker]

If the cops are still looking for him, yes. If they've already caught him, no. It's not clear if the story the OP is talking about is about criminals still at large, or criminals who have already been apprehended.

I interpretted "getaway car" from the OP to mean that he was still at large. I could be wrong.

[Marley23]

There is no standard that I know of, it's an editors' discretion thing. Some people will include it, because if the police know what a suspect looks like, why not include it? Others won't because they don't want to cast suspicion on innocent people.

[Miller]

I interpretted "getaway car" from the OP to mean that he was still at large. I could be wrong.

Could be, but properly speaking, a getaway car is just a car a criminal plans to use to get away in. It doesn't really have anything to do with wether or not he actually gets away.

[Renob]

There was an issue over this at the Washington Post last year where the paper left out details of suspects' race and caught a lot of flak. I found this blog entry on it: http://patterico.com/2005/08/02/3407/when-race-is-relevant-at-the-washington-post/

The blog is pretty biased but it gives the facts of the case.

[pizzabrat]

When do they ever report the skin color? That sounds like too fruitful a level of specifitivity. Don't they just say the race, along with other unremarkable markers, like age and height (naturally always well within the average range of height)?

[GorillaMan]

When do they ever report the skin color? That sounds like too fruitful a level of specifitivity. Don't they just say the race...
Because that's far less prone to speculation and error?

[monstro]

Unless the reporter had details about the suspect's overall appearance (height, build, etc., unique marks), I fail to see how knowing skin color is particularly helpful.

It would be interesting to find out if broadcasting physical descriptions of suspects in the media helps the general public locate them. Is a suspect more likely to be caught if everyone knows that someone with his height and skin color is at large? Or does it make absolutely no difference? If it's the latter, then I can see why a reporter would exclude skin color from their piece. It's irrelevant information.

[DVsickgirlDV]

Slight hijack: when I was working for my university's newspaper, there was a man who was roaming the campus sexually assaulting women (or something to that degree, the details are a bit hazy). One of the victims was able to form a police composite of the attacker, who happened to be a Black male. We published the composite with an article discussing the attacks and basically just warning females on campus to be aware of what was going on. The next day we got a large number of complaints from the Black community saying publishing the photo was somehow offensive to them and perpetuated negative Black stereotypes. *rolls eyes*

[rjung]

The standard is that most newspapers won't do it because of political correctness.
Yeah, just like most newspapers don't mention the religion of most criminals for fear of a backlash from the religious right. :rolleyes:

[Renob]

Unless the reporter had details about the suspect's overall appearance (height, build, etc., unique marks), I fail to see how knowing skin color is particularly helpful.
As was the case in the Washington Post incident in the blog mentioned above, police provided a very detailed description of the subject with a variety of characteristics that could identify him. Of course, the Post didn't think mentioning the suspect's skin color or hair style (cornrows) was relevant.

I think that's political correctness gone too far. Skin color is certainly relevant in terms of identifying a suspect. It's like leaving out the hair color of someone. While that one characteristic may not be important by itself, it adds to the picture of the person.

Editors and writers should be more concerned about providing an accurate descripton of a criminal than with worrying whether they will offend people who happen to be the same race as the criminal.

[you with the face]

Skin color rarely if ever is reported. Skin color is also different than race. In terms of providing description information, race gives very little so I don't see what benefit there is to reporting it, especially if the intent of the article is to simply relay that an event occurred and is not intended to faciliate a manhunt.

[BwanaBob]

Yeah, just like most newspapers don't mention the religion of most criminals for fear of a backlash from the religious right. :rolleyes:

A suspect's religion is mostly irrelevant; it is unlikely to assist in identifying him/her. I don't know anyone who can "spot a Catholic at 50 yards". (except maybe the Pope).

But a suspect's race is visual information, and like height and build, is useful in trying to find/identify a suspect.

The local Long Island newspaper "Newsday" is "famous" for leaving out race in any crime story, unless the suspect is white.

[you with the face]

As was the case in the Washington Post incident in the blog mentioned above, police provided a very detailed description of the subject with a variety of characteristics that could identify him. Of course, the Post didn't think mentioning the suspect's skin color or hair style (cornrows) was relevant.

As I recall, the Post left out a lot of information present in the police report, not just race. The suspect's build, height, color and type of clothes they were wearing, none of that was present in the article. People seized on the fact that race was ommitted, but seemed not to care that details which happen to be a lot more descriptive were also not mentioned.

If you're going to attribute PCness to the Post's failure to note race, to what should we attribute people's fixation on race to the exclusion of other details?

[An Arky]

Yeah, they skip skin color/race, but never, ever fail to mention to mention the age of some quoted random person.

John Doe, 47, saw the gunman drive away...

:rolleyes:

[Marley23]

Editors and writers should be more concerned about providing an accurate descripton of a criminal than with worrying whether they will offend people who happen to be the same race as the criminal.
That's easy for you to say when you don't have to keep people reading your paper. ;) I can see both sides of the "is it useful info" question (do police blotter items for things like stolen wallets ever solve crimes? I'm skeptical), but when information doesn't seem useful and there seems even a remote possibility of inflaming your readership, I can see why people wouldn't use it. I usually include it.

[Marley23]

Yeah, they skip skin color/race, but never, ever fail to mention to mention the age of some quoted random person.

John Doe, 47, saw the gunman drive away...

:rolleyes:
There actually IS a reason for that, although doesn't matter much in the situation you gave. It's to prevent that John Doe from being mistaken for other John Does.

[Clark K]

I'm a reporter, although I don't often write about crime. My rule of thumb has always been to include race when it's part of a thorough description (height, weight, clothing, etc.) that might help people identify the suspect but leave it out when it would do nothing but tell people a black/asian/white person committed this crime.

[fessie]

Hmmm, I don't know anything about "skin color", but it always seemed to me like they only report African-American (or Black*), but not Caucasian or White*, as if White* is the natural assumption. "Everyone's White* unless specifically mentioned otherwise."

As a result, I think it makes non-Whites* stand out. If every criminal was described as "A White* man/woman did it" that would make a different impression.

And if someone's a different ethnicity, it seems like that's generally noted.



* Capitalized? Not capitalized? I dunno.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

It could be that the robber was caught because they were seen clearly and recognized, but no one got a good look at the getaway driver, only the car? If they caught the robber, then his description is moot, but any information that could help catch the getaway driver would be pertinent.

[rjung]

A suspect's religion is mostly irrelevant; it is unlikely to assist in identifying him/her.
Remember that the next time you hear a breaking news report about a "suspected Islamic terror suspsect".

[BwanaBob]

Remember that the next time you hear a breaking news report about a "suspected Islamic terror suspsect".

I knew someone would say this; look, if someone said "be on the lookout for a thief, he's Muslim", that info would be near useless. Are you claiming you can spot a Muslim by looking at him? Oh he's wearing that garb we always see on TV from the Middle East..., okay, so ME Christians wear that garb too. I work with some Muslims, they dress Western, so there goes that.

[What the .... ?!?!]

I'm a reporter, although I don't often write about crime. My rule of thumb has always been to include race when it's part of a thorough description (height, weight, clothing, etc.) that might help people identify the suspect but leave it out when it would do nothing but tell people a black/asian/white person committed this crime.

Clark, as a reporter can you tell us if it is common among any media outlets, to have any kind of guidlines on how reporting is done ?

A couple of added notes on the story ......

1. The article moved from the front page into the middle of the section where security camera pictures of the two remaining suspects were printed. They were in fact "people of color".

2. I say "remaining" ........ there were originally three and one was killed by the store manager who was legally carrying a concealed weapon. There will be no charges against him.

[Marley23]

* Capitalized? Not capitalized? I dunno.
Not capitalized.

[Clark K]

Clark, as a reporter can you tell us if it is common among any media outlets, to have any kind of guidlines on how reporting is done ?


I don't know that I can shed much light on that. I've spent my entire career with one news organization. With us, it's often a matter of institutional knowledge _ the new guy asks the veteran what to do, the veteran passes along what he was taught and so forth.

I suspect it's similar elsewhere. Journalists tend not to have the organizational skills or conformist mindset to come up with clear guidelines. Some big outfits, like the New York Times, might put more effort into codifying these issues, but I'd say that's the exception.

That's one reason it's misleading to think about "the media" doing this or that. The media is a bunch of individuals more or less making it up as they go along.

Hope that helps a little.

[guizot]

I'm a reporter, although I don't often write about crime. My rule of thumb has always been to include race when it's part of a thorough description (height, weight, clothing, etc.) that might help people identify the suspectYes, that's the point. If the police are asking for the public to help find the suspect, then yes, they tend to use race as a description. The press has no choice in the matter; they have to use the description they get from the police.

[Marley23]

The press has no choice in the matter; they have to use the description they get from the police.
Yes they do. You mean that we can't use information we don't get from the police.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

There is no standard that I know of, it's an editors' discretion thing. Some people will include it, because if the police know what a suspect looks like, why not include it? Others won't because they don't want to cast suspicion on innocent people.


Lacking a thorough description, do you mention gender? If you identify a thief as a man (or woman), that casts suspicion on a far larger group of innocent people.

[tashabot]

Well, at my newspaper we usually say something like this:

"The suspect is described as male, 6 foot tall, dark-skinned, with a shaved head. He is missing his front three teeth."

Wheras you would inject "Dark-skinned" for a black person, "light-skinned" for a white person, and "olive-skinned" for asian people. Hispanics are, I believe, described as "medium-toned." Descriptive words only!

~Tasha

[Shodan]

Hmmm, I don't know anything about "skin color", but it always seemed to me like they only report African-American (or Black*), but not Caucasian or White*, as if White* is the natural assumption. "Everyone's White* unless specifically mentioned otherwise." AFAICT, when it comes to crime stories in my local paper, I assume the opposite - the paper doesn't mention race unless it is a white guy.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

Lacking a thorough description, do you mention gender? If you identify a thief as a man (or woman), that casts suspicion on a far larger group of innocent people.
I'll generally use whatever I get. It's not much of a comparison, though: I don't think people are going to get suspicious whenever they see a woman, and with race that might be a legitimate concern.

[Loopydude]

Seems like kind of an oddball story. I don't watch local news or read the Globe all that much anymore, but usually when there's a suspect at large, they'll report on whatever characteristics are known, like height, weight, build, hairstyle, facial hair, discernable ethnicity, skin tone, tatoos, piercings, you name it. If they have a picture, they show the picture. If they have only a sketch, they show the sketch. The standard seems to be to report whatever can be reported.