The Philadelphia Daily News apologized for an article about 15 suspected murderers on the loose. None of the 15 were white. Critics said that showing these pictures gave the impression that all murderers are non-whites, which promotes racism.
OTOH the Daily News has a defence.[ul][li]The article seems like a natural extension of the Amber Alert, which has been in the news recently.[]The article worked. It led to the arrest of two of the suspects.[]Although the Daily News chose only 15 out of a total of 41 suspected murderers on the loose, none of the 41 are white. [/ul]An important subsidiary question is why there are no white murder suspects on the loose in Philadelphia right now. What should the paper do, given this reality?[/li]
– Self-censorship – don’t print the article.
– Maybe they could try to find a way to include white photos in the group. How could that be done? Is that realistic?
– Or, maybe they were right to run the article as written. The impression it gives is accurate, albeit disturbing.
I don’t like racism and I don’t like censorship. What’s the right answer?
I really don’t see any issue, here. If there is no white criminal on the loose, what could they do except publish pictures of non-white people? Pay an actor to play the part of the white criminal?
There’s no racism involved in this case. It’s a non-issue, IMO.
I’d go for option 3. If there are currently no white murderers on the loose, the paper has a right and a duty to report it that way. It would certainly be racist to include ‘fake’ white mugshots just to even up the numbers.
As suggested in the apology, it might have been a good idea to point out this imbalance in the original article and address the issue of why this situation has occured but I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with the way they handled it. I’m not familiar with Philadelphia. Are white people in the minority there? That would certainly help explain the apparent unfairness.
It’s one thing for a newspaper to alter its opinion or editorial so as not to offend a particular group. It’s another matter entirely for it to alter the facts so as not to offend.
I think the newspaper was right to publish the story ‘as is’, and has a duty to report the facts. It might also be prudent for the journalist to find some way to note that there were no white suspects, hence the lack of white suspect photographs. Such a clause would have to be carefully worded to avoid giving the impression that ‘only black people murder in this area’ (however obvious it would be to a reader with common-sense).
I think it’s silly to censor the facts. If all the murders on the loose at a given time are black, then put the pictures there for all to see. It’s silly, otherwise.
Of course, if that’s insulting to the liberal/whatnot ego, write an editoral about it! Complain! Point out what’s wrong!
Just don’t censor the facts because you find them disturbing.
Quick Question - what’s their usual policy on showing mug shots?
There’s one paper in the area that only mentions the race of suspects when they aren’t white. Same crime reporter, presumably the same editor - but the description of suspects or arestees doesn’t include race if the person suspected or arrested is/was white. (It’ll generally show up several times in the article if they’re black or hispanic.) And, yes, that bothers me.
>> There’s one paper in the area that only mentions the race of suspects when they aren’t white.
What newspaper is that?
In any case the information is there. If no race is mentioned then the suspect is white. It might make sense in a place where the vast majority of the populiation is white and therefore suspects are expected to be white.
The Philadelphia Daily News said they made two mistakes but did not say what would be the right way to do it, presumably because there isn’t one. I think they are just appeasing their readers who protested. Some reflection on the readers too.
The newspaper should just report the fact. Whether the suspects are black or white has no bearing on the story.
But the fact that the newspaper felt that it SHOULD apologize for reporting the facts shows us all how liberal the writers at the newspaper are. I’m willing to bet that if all the suspects were white that the newspaper wouldn’t apologise.
I read 4 newspapers a day, and I’ve actually seen a trend in recent years that if the suspects are black, the paper usually won’t report on the race of the suspect, but if the suspect is white, the newspaper usually will report his race.
–Self-censorship – if it’s newsworthy, it’s their duty to report it. Maybe plastering their mug shots on the front page was not very PC, but the story was of interest to the public.
– White imposters – the paper loses all journalistic credibility if it lies.
– Disturbing, accurate message – violent crime among non-whites vs. among whites has been well studied and sometimes the truth hurts. Many factors besides skin color are involved. Non-whites tend to be poorer and poor people tend to commit more violent crimes than the more well off. Well off non-whites murder as much as their white counterparts, while poor white crime rates approach that of their non-white counterparts… No cite here, but any SOC101 student can explain it. There is no implication that non-whites don’t murder, just that non are on the lam.
In the end I think you would find that skin color has nothing to do with it and economics has everything to do with it. That’s what needs to be reported, IMHO.
Good question. The article cited in the OP doesn’t say, and neither does an article in todays’s New York Times. Both articles were carefully written to be gender-neutral.
Liberal schmiberal, journalism isn’t what it used to be. When I studied journalism 40-plus years ago the only thing a reporter had to worry about was accuracy and the libel laws. Today a reporter has to consider political correctness and the tender sensibilities of whatever “group” might get pissed off. The facts seem to be getting lost in the PC shuffle (hey! a good name for a new dance!). The truth is often lost as well.