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.
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.
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.
[sarcasm]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.
[/sarcasm]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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…