Whites are, or soon will be, in the minority in most large U.S. cities. E72521’s link refers to the metropolitan area, not Philadelphia proper.
From www.census.gov:
Philadelphia City
Population 1,517,550
Non-Hispanic white: 42.5%
Black: 43.2%
Hispanic: 8.5%
Asian: 4.5%
(Amputate the colon or the link won’t work. 
)
The people of Philadelphia’s problem lies not with the paper, but with the facts. It’s the black community that owes the apology, and if anything needs discussing, it’s why they are over-represented on the top 41 list.
The only thing the paper might have done differently is move the pictures from the front page and discuss the inherent bias in the facts.
That they resulted in the arrest of two known murderers should be the supreme defense to any criticism.
I think what the paper did was perfectly legitimate - and, as has been noted, effective - journalism. They had nothing to apologize for, and it bothers me that they apologized anyway.
Now, were I the editor of their paper, I might have looked at other kinds of stories we could do in coming days to reinforce the idea that not all blacks are criminals. Perhaps more prominent placement of a story about black entrepreneurs making good, or community groups in black neighborhoods doing good works.
There’s no need to distort the truth in any case.
Actually, discussion of issues raised in a story properly belongs in the Opinion section of the paper. The proper function of the front page is reportage, period. Even in modern “journalism” news and commentary should be separate. The pictures were part of the story, and even helped resolve cases. For the paper to apologize for the content of hard news is simply ridiculous. The news is what it is. An editor who decides what to print based on the “feelings” of the readership should be bounced back to covering cub scout meetings IMO.
Shodan:
Cute. :rolleyes:
Yes, and the white community owes an apology to all the people they have disproprotionately victimized. :rolleyes:
The newspaper was stupid to be so sensitive, but let’s not go overboard in our derision, people.
Gadarene - you must be the only one who got it.
The famous use of the term ‘niggardly’ was the same kind of an issue - an apology issued for doing something totally inoffensive.
Or maybe the offense was in allowing the offended group to make themselves appear ridiculous.
Regards,
Shodan
What happened was this: In 1999 David Howard, an aid to Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, remarked in a staff meeting that he needed to be “niggardly” (meaning miserly) with a fund that didn’t have much money in it. Two of his coworkers, who were ignorant of the word’s meaning or etymology, were horrified and reported the matter to the mayor. Of course, the brouhaha leaked to the press, and Howard (who happens to be white) offered his resignation. Williams (who happens to be black) knew the word was inoffensive to an educated person, but because some of his constituants had complained that he didn’t seem to be “black enough,” accepted it.
This story was picked up by many sources in the print and electronic media, and Julian Bond of the NAACP backed David Howard, which Howard’s own chickenshsit boss should have done.
This is pertinent to this thread because it goes to the question of political correctness. IMO the more politically correct a news organization strives to be the less valuable it is as a source of information. News organizations ow us nothing but accurate information. If people are offended by the truth, that’s just too bad.
What happened was this: In 1999 David Howard, an aid to Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, remarked in a staff meeting that he needed to be “niggardly” (meaning miserly) with a fund that didn’t have much money in it. Two of his coworkers, who were ignorant of the word’s meaning or etymology, were horrified and reported the matter to the mayor. Of course, the brouhaha leaked to the press, and Howard (who happens to be white) offered his resignation. Williams (who happens to be black) knew the word was inoffensive to an educated person, but because some of his constituants had complained that he didn’t seem to be “black enough,” accepted it.
This story was picked up by many sources in the print and electronic media, and Julian Bond of the NAACP backed David Howard, which Howard’s own chickenshsit boss should have done.
This is pertinent to this thread because it goes to the question of political correctness. IMO the more politically correct a news organization strives to be the less valuable it is as a source of information. News organizations ow us nothing but accurate information. If people are offended by the truth, that’s just too bad.
Sorry about the double post. I got a “can’t find this page” message when I tried to post it the first time, and tried again. Damn hamsters!
From the linked apology: “These 41 were identified by the Police Department’s Homicide Unit as suspects for whom murder warrants have been issued. There were no white people who were being sought for murder.”
The apology correctly notes that the reporter(s) should have thought to ask about reasons for the racial makeup of the wanted list (whites less prone to murder lately? easier to catch, so no outstanding warrants? etc.). It should have been anticipated that readers would be offended, despite assumed lack of racist intent.
By the way, were there no Hispanics or Asians in the suspected murderers’ gallery, just blacks??
The paper should be more worried about functioning brain cells at the editor’s desk, rather than its “pounding heart”.