Update II: For the most part, my commenters are cool. One just alerted me to a related blurb in the Washington Times (8/21), which reports, “The robbers are described by police as dark-complexioned black men thought to be in their mid-30s.”
Emphasis added. So are we to believe Post reporters weren’t privy to this information? Reporting crimes, with all relevant details in the story, isn’t for the faint-hearted. Take a memo, Post.
Update: A commenter posted a link to a follow-up story, “3 Robbers Caught on Store Camera.” (8/22)
The man in the video looks black to me, but my eyes could be “jumping the gun.”
The story says one man wore a bandana over his face, one had a baseball cap pulled low over his head, and another, reportedly wearing a white T-shirt, was apparently uncovered.
I’m almost certain that witnesses told reporters what race the thugs were. You’ll notice the follow-up story doesn’t mention race, either, although it includes the store video shot.
By the way, the suspects are still as free as birds. Thanks to the video shot, concerned citizens now have some idea what one of the suspects looks like.
————————————————————————–
Washington Post reporters must be on crack.
That’s my assessment, based on the fact that during a high-profile crime wave, they failed to mention the race or physical description of robbery and attempted murder suspects still at large.
In “Worker Hurt In Robbery of Georgetown Jewelry Store,” (8/21) (free registration required) we learn that a man was critically injured after a couple of thugs tried to rob him in broad daylight. But before we get to the details of this crime, the reporters give us background on previous Georgetown crimes (see reference to crime wave).
At last, they get there. Inspector Andy Solberg — the cop who was briefly suspended and reinstated because he had the un-PC temerity to express a fact that involved race in connection with the brutal murder of Alan Senitt, a British national who was in Georgetown with a friend minding his own business — said at least two thugs robbed the store at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon.
The thugs haven’t been caught, so who should we the residents of the murder capital be on the lookout for? Check this out:
Police described two suspects as men in their thirties. One was in an orange turtleneck and a dark sweatshirt. The other was pulling a wheeled suitcase with a duffel bag on top…Police asked anyone with information to call 202-727-9099.
That’s helpful. How many “men in their thirties” are there walking around Washington, D.C., I wonder? No doubt the suspects will have changed clothes, but a physical description — height, build…RACE… — would drain the pool a bit. (No mention of masks. Somebody must have seen their faces.)
Or is it just understood that the criminals are black? That’s the likely explanation. But I still think the reporters are smoking something funny.
Incidentally, early stories about Senitt’s murder don’t mention the race of his killer or the “assailants,” either. But NBC4 got a good shot of one of the fools on his perp walk.
So there we have it. Because the left-leaning Washington Post doesn’t want to hurt people’s feelings or appear “racist,” it omits crucial information about a couple of fools who rob and attempt to murder people in broad daylight, fools who haven’t been caught.
Yeah, that “crime emergency” thing is working splendidly, Chief.
Addendum — I’ll pre-empt an expected response to this post: “Maybe the police didn’t tell the reporters the race of the suspects.”
The day journalists report only what the cops tell them and omit eyewitness accounts is the day I’ll toss my beloved Treo out of the window.
Blogger and commenter Mark the Pundit writes: “It’s funny, I do not remember the Post being so sensitive during the DC sniper period when they were screaming at the top of their lungs ‘look for a white guy in a van!’”
By the way, the DC snipers turned out to be a couple of black idiots, not white ones.
Blogger and commenter Hube says: “Our local paper, the News Journal, never identifies the race of criminal suspects either. As a result, letter writers to the paper frequently mock the news daily…Of course, when it’s a white-on-black ‘hate crime,’ it’s virtually guaranteed to be prominently printed.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 43 comments }
Ms. Barber;
Isn’t the WaPo one of those media outlets that’s always calling for treating terrorists as criminals, not terrorists? Are they going to let us know what ethnicity the guy who blows up the Walmart is – or are we supposed to guess who to be on the lookout for?
Mike Giles
It is simply astonishing that anyone would consider a description of a criminal’s race as un-PC. I can’t imagine any black person I’ve ever met being offended by that (and I’m betting that the WaPo writer in question is white, just a hunch).
It’s not like WaPo would have been saying that all criminals were black, or that even a majority of criminals were black. They’d only be talking about the criminals in question. And what’s up with not giving more physical description? Were they afraid of offending tall, short, overweight, or skinny people?
It’s funny, I do not remember the Post being so sensitive during the DC sniper period when they were screaming at the top of their lungs “look for a white guy in a van!”
“Compassion” has just risen to the point of putting us all in danger. “News” reporters indeed.
It would only be sporting for the alleged criminals to wear the same outfit for at least say, a week or two. Play fair, guys! You got a break..now it’s time for you to Give Back.
As a man, I’m offended by the use of the word “men” in that description. It’s highly prejudicial, and should be replaced by the word “persons” immediately.
Sorry, Red, but you’re out of luck. Sex doesn’t come into play, only race. And that’s limited to races other than “White.”
RedBeard– Excellent analogy.
DC and Atlanta are racist cities that can not tell The Truth.
Remember the blackman who was finally caught after killing over two dozen young boys about twenty years ago? The city refused to consider the possibility that the killer could be black. That racism, yes racism, cost the lives of another dozen young black boys while they danced around their PC liberal fantasyland. Pitiful.
Let’s not jump the gun here. Maybe they were ‘Asian men’.
A couple of points –
(1) The article says that “at least two and possibly three” men committed the crime. If the police aren’t even sure about the number involved, how can they be sure about their physical description?
(2) The fact that one of them was wearing an orange turtleneck (in August?!?) indicates to me that they were covering themselves up.
In other words, it’s quite possible that the only one who got a good look at the criminals was the store clerk himself, and he was shot in the back. Being in critical condition, he might not have been interviewed by the police at the time of the article, and the only thing the police had (and by extention, the reporters) were eyewitnesses who saw “two or three” people running from the jewelry store.
I think you jumped the gun here.
I’m quite used to contrarians trying to poke holes just for the sake of being contrary. But here’s a possiblity you failed to mention: the Washington Post was afraid to report the suspects’ race. Oh, wait a second. I already said that. That gun’s pretty easy to jump. – Admin
Our local paper, the News Journal, never identifies the race of criminal suspects either. As a result, letter writers to the paper frequently mock the news daily.
Of course, when it’s a white-on-black “hate crime,” it’s virtually guaranteed to be prominently printed.
Yup, I was right. You jumped the gun.
They were covering themselves up. From WaPo, the next day:
Authorities released the videotape in hopes of catching the assailants. It showed a man in a white T-shirt walking into Georgetown Fine Jewelry and Art with a gun held high. He was followed by another man in a yellow shirt, who covered his face with a bandana. There also was a third man wearing a blue jacket and baseball cap pulled low over his eyes.
P.S. WaPo displays the store video, and a photo still, making the race of the assailants crystal clear (or, as clear as the video allows).
P.P.S. They were caught.
Kman, are you serious? Bandana or not, some skin would be visible, and only one suspect was wearing a bandana. The other had on a baseball cap, and his face had to be visible. And I’m almost certain reporters talked to witnesses who said the criminals were black or appeared black to them. Good grief.
You’re right about one thing. Although my assumptions and guesses were correct, I jumped the gun in failing to look for a follow-up story. Thanks for the link.
Kman, are you serious? Bandana or not, some skin would be visible
Probably. But jewelry stores aren’t like Duane Reade. They generally aren’t crowded.
I’m only suggesting that, at the time the article was written, the police may not have had time to interview people who had seen the assailants. Or maybe they had, but there was conflicting accounts of what the assailants looked like (not unheard of).
It’s clear from the article you link to that they hadn’t oooked at the surveillance tape. I suspect that WaPo wasn’t told about physical descriptions simply because, at that point in time, the police weren’t offering any.
At any rate, your thesis that WaPo didn’t provide a description of the assailants is clearly belied by the fact that they provided a picture and video of the assailants.
P.S. I was misinformed above — they weren’t caught.
I was misinformed above — they weren’t caught.
“Jumped the gun” would be more like it. It tends to happen to contrary-for-the-sake-of-being-contrary types.
And my “thesis” isn’t “belied” by any “fact.” The Post did not provide a photo in the first story about the robbery, the same story this post is based on.
The exchange has been…fun.
“P.S. I was misinformed above — they weren’t caught”
Seems I jumped the gun, too.
At the risk of being accused of having a one-track mind (it’s not true; I can manage to think of about one and a half things at the same time, thank you)
I cannot avoid pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that on the same day the “Crime Emergency” was being declared, the DC prosecutors were using EIGHT federal attorneys plus nine additional staff to make certain that Collin Finnerty never threw any of those fake punches in Georgetown again.
(You remember him–the young, white, rich, arrogant preppie whose participation in helmet sports led to unremitting hubris, disregard for social inferiors, retrograde attitudes towards gays, and overall anti-social behavoir?)
The press certainly didn’t have any trouble identifying his ethnic and social background, and then psychoanalyzing him as well. (And if he wasn’t even half of those things, well, he needed to be, because the story required it, and it’s necessary that society get the message–it ’should’ have been that way, even if it wasn’t necessarily so.)
Buy hey, if a member of a radical muslim sect attempts to hijack an airplane while shouting “Death to Zionists!”, it will likely be reported that a “bearded man from south Asia” who expressed some fairly common political sentiments was brutally escorted from a plane by insensitive federal agents, and now will likely commence a discrimination suit against the TSB and the airline, while deploring the climate of hate created against some genuinely peaceful religious beliefs.
I checked the washington times and the men were discribed as “dark skinned black males” This was in yesterdays edition. the wp has been otl on this for years
Next Washington Post Piece:
An online writer in her 30’s, whose last name rhymes with Harbor, and has skin color that isn’t white but darker, criticized us for not being forthright. If you see this woman’s website, do not approach her directly. If you must, leave her a message, thorough an anonymous comment, asking her to contact the police and turn herself in for being mean.
Love it.
– Admin
It’s funny, but in every movie or television drama or real life serial murder case the FBI profiler determines that the perpetrator is likely a white male. Now, for serial killers that may be the case usually, but I can’t think of many sniper cases in our history and yet the FBI fell back on their default white male profile for the DC snipers.
So, as far as I can tell, profiling is defined as “looking for a white male sociopathic suspect” and racial profiling is “trying to blame the innocent black/arab/muslim because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time (possibly driving the wrong car).”
One just alerted me to a related story in the Washington Times, which reports, “The robbers are described by police as dark-complexioned black men thought to be in their mid-30s.”
Hmmmmmmm.
Well, I suppose it’s possible to argue the Washington Times article was published later than the WaPo article (i.e., the police had more information later on).
But I’m not going there.
Okay, LSB (with an assist from “neverforget”). Point conceded. It does look like WaPo was being unnecessarily PC in their “colorblind” description.
I doff my liberal hat to you.
Call me crazy (many have, so don’t be redundant please) but I would think the HUE of one’s skin might be a germane portion of the description of a person who is the subject of police interest in much the same way that blue eyes and blonde hair might be!
PC seems to me to be more and more a code word for suspension of common sense!
If things were closer to home, what would happen?
Say two or three men in their mid-30s walked into the Washington Post offices, robbed and roughed up ten or so staff members, fleeing before the police arrived…
What would that story look like?
Might they mention the race, sex, and even police sketches?
Here are the Houston Chronicle’s guidelines for reporting race. I highlighted the most pertinent part:
http://blogs.chron.com/aboutchron/archives/2005/07/race_matters_to.html
Use a racial or ethnic identification only when it is clearly pertinent. If you would not normally identify a person as being white in a story, do not use racial identity. For example, if you would not write: “Dan Rather, the white anchor of the CBS Nightly News,” then do not write, “Connie Chung, noted Asian-American newscaster …”
Race should not be used in a police description that is too skimpy to identify a suspect, such as “a black man in his 20s.” But a complete description (several elements, such as height, weight and personal
characteristics) should always include race.
In stories other than crime stories, the same standard applies. In a feature story about a single white man who has adopted five children, all of whom are white, race is not pertinent to the story. However, if
he has adopted five black children, race is a significant point of the story.
Keep in mind that race and ethnicity are not the same thing, and race is often a complex and subjective subject. Hispanics, for example, can be white or black. In stories where people are categorized by race, such as reports on racial profiling, explain that the categories are those used by the reporting organization…
so at what point does the post’s (and the rest of the MSM) refusal to mention race/ethnicity/skin hue in stories like these move from mere “political correctness” into the lands of “lies of omission”?
i submit we’re already there.
I think that most cases of people complaining about this involve people who really want to ‘keep score’. I have even noticed that suspects’ races are disclosed only in more detailed descriptions. I doubt that anyone believes that negative reactions would result from disclosing a suspects race because it is done constantly on those daily reports where black crime suspects are described in detail. The vagueness of “male in his 30s” is not much greater than “black male in his 30s”. “Black male in his 30s” is a 100% accurate description of me and a whole lot of folks.
I doubt that such vague descriptions would facilitate citizen awareness of viable suspects, but would probably facilitate broad racial profiling.
Likewise, the notion that they are more inclined to state the race of white suspects is something that I have never personally noticed. Before I started reading comments from the far Right, I had never heard or read any such notion. Even today, I don’t notice any real differences. I think the idea of a difference is mostly selective perception. I don’t see it. I have had to search high and low at times to find out the race of a suspect in the media, eventually finding out the the suspect is white.
Shade sometimes when these crimes are committed I think people want to know the race of the criminal just because they hope it was not “one of us”. The long term black female columnist at the WP wrote a column about this. I first saw the report in the wp and thought “hmmmm” and went right to the Washington Times and there it was. That is the great thing about information on the internet. Kind of a wiki thing. Right now there are reports of somebody “a 20 year old male” who has shot and killed at least 2 people in a school in Vermont. He is reported as being arrested. NO report on his race. Hmmmmm. Vermont. Probably NOT a black guy up there I would guess but I just do not know, thats just my perception of the percentage of minority people in the population there. The wp long ago stopped reporting on local black on black crime other than a brief discription of where, when and how many. Usually no discription of victim or criminal. Only when there is a trial do you get a picture. The wp has a site where all the dead from Iraq pictures are shown. Sometimes I think they should have a file of the pictures of all the local victims of violence, you know they must be loved and not forgotton.
I’m old enough to remember when this all started…several decades ago. There was no pussy footing around with the reason. The black political community very clearly said that it looked as though all the crimes were being committed by black people. And this made people of other races look at innocent black people as if they were criminals. That was when black crime was much lower than today. Today Hispanic crime is high, very high, in some areas. The chance of the reporting changing is very low until minority communities decide to tackle the problem within their own community. White people are forced to do that, they don’t generally have some other race to blame it on.
Marty
Shade said; “I think that most cases of people complaining about this involve people who really want to ‘keep score’”
One curious dynamic which I have noted in dialogue today is that there are many folks who believe that they are capable of determining the motives of others.
One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks on this board who were discussing the above crime reports simply want to “keep score.” Is it remotely possible that they are simply pointing out another example of PC behavior that is inconsistently applied?
One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks on this board who were discussing the above crime reports simply want to “keep score.â€
You seem to not understand the difference between “I think” and “I know”. As I recall, speculation is given the thumbs up here.
it remotely possible that they are simply pointing out another example of PC behavior that is inconsistently applied?
One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks in the media reporting crime a particular way simply do so for PC reasons. Is it remotely possible that they are simply following a guideline based on what they view as practicality (Does this response sound familiar?)?
Don’t be hypocritical Jan. People claim to know the motive behind people’s actions all of the time here. I have yet to see proof of this particular alleged inconsistent application and I speculate that “keeping score” is a strong motivation.
I’m keeping score on short, fat, bald white guys who wear football jerseys to the mall. Shifty bunch, the lot of them.
Unless one is “keeping score” with valid statistics or scientific sampling, using ad hoc examples is not a great way to keep score – and the purpose of people keeping score is often suspect. It takes a lot of statistical work to determine if it’s low income, lack of a father, or culture, determining crime.
I read fast so sorry if Shade or some already covered it, but IF a suspect is at large, there is a reason for providing a description of the suspect.
If the guy is captured and doing the perp walk, there is really no reason to provide a description as black or white or Asian.
Now that I remember it, I think Shade was an example of someone trying to keep score of news coverage, on some previous thread, with a claim that proportionally more criminals on the news were black. Others had different observations, but short of a more scientific measurement, observer bias is a problem.
Hi UNK
Yes I agree that a description is important. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me in the least for the race of all suspects to be publicly disclosed. The point I was making was that the reasoning behind news agencies not disclosing race has at least some validity. The race of a perpetrator is really not much of a description. A real description involves race along with several other characteristics. So unless they are going to give a detailed description of the suspect, what’s the point of stating the suspect’s race? Saying “a black man in his 30s” is not much less vague than saying “a man in his 30s”. One will notice that when the media gives detailed descriptions of a suspect that includes height, weight, body type, complexion, hair length, tattoos, etc., they always include race.
Now one can argue that even if it is vague, it doesn’t hurt to state the race, but some will argue that it promotes profiling and even if it doesn’t, then a certain degree of political correctness does come into play.
Such PC may not be relatively bad. For instance, if someone introduced Secretary Rice as “the black secretary of State”, I would imagine that even the most conservative of people would see that as inappropriate. Such introductions were common 50+ years ago, but nowadays that would be considered very politically incorrect.
So while I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other, I can somewhat see the medias reasoning behind this guideline. What I have not noticed is the alleged double standard with regards to disclosing race and I continue to unsuccessfully search for any studies done on it.
Introducing Dr. Rice as the “black Secretary of State” is improper because it’s silly and irrelevant to do so, just as it would have been silly and irrelevant to introduce James Baker as the “white Secretary of State.”
However, reporting that two black males just robbed a candy store is neither silly nor irrelevant, just as it would not be silly nor irrelevant to report that two short, fat, bald white guys wearing football jerseys had just robbed the doughnut shop at the mall.
A little common sense would go a long way in this debate.
You’re exactly right, RedBeard. When discussing these issues, too often common sense among dissenters isn’t as abundant as it could be. People are too focused on trying to dispute my points, punch holes through them, or otherwise be contrary for its own sake instead of applying real life standards to a set of facts. Any reasonable person knows that the race of a dangerous criminal, still on the loose, is important, regardless of what some left-leaning newspaper says. Calling Rice the “black Secretary of State” just for the sake of noting her race is not important. But there’s no point getting into the back-and-forth with people who pretend they don’t see the distinction.
I’ve been doing this for almost three years, and believe me, I’ve heard and seen it all from the naysayers.
My common sense is just fine.
Now to address the straw man argument just made, I never said that the race of a suspect was not an important part of the description. It is a very important part of the description. The point is that race by itself is not a real description. It is quite telling that RedBeard included “short” “fat” and “bald” to the description of the white guys. Seems that subconsciously he knows that “white guys” alone is no real description.
The notion that not disclosing race is a detriment to catching the suspect is a front. The bottom line is some folks with pro-white agendas want the race of suspects routinely announced in anticipation of the vast majority being black or Hispanic. Thus, it is a case of “racial score keeping”. In essence, stating the race without the other details does lean toward announcing race just for the sake of doing so.
Speaking of “straw man,” I don’t know anyone who thinks or has said on this blog that reporting race but excluding other physical attributes is appropriate. Since race is part of the physical description, it would be mentioned along with a criminal’s height, weight, hair, etc. The original focus of the discussion is the Washington Post’s curious omission of the race of thugs still on the loose and my contention that PC came into play at the expense of accurately reporting a crime. No matter color these creeps are, if they are still on the loose, their race should be mentioned, along with other physical attributes, so other storeowners could be on the lookout. Shade, you were doing so well commenting all these months. Whether or not I agreed with you, your points were reasonable enough. But with this “pro-white agenda” talk, you’re taking the easy way out, reminding me of all the other black dissenters who’ve come before you. But in the end I guess it doesn’t matter. Such is life. – Admin
Mea culpa. I should have said “short, fat, bald black guys wearing football jerseys.” Thanks for the correction, Shade. Now everything is fine.
Shade said: “You seem to not understand the difference between “I think†and “I knowâ€.
Shade, you originally stated: “I think that most cases of people complaining about this involve people who really want to ‘keep score’” Are you now making the very precious distinction between “you think you think something” and “you think you know” something?????? I merely stated that I find it curious when folks “think they know” what the motives of folks are….It is so utterly obvious to me that you do not “know” which is why I wrote the words “think they know.”
So, yes…I do the the difference between think and know and would have thought that my words rendered that obvious.
Shade said: “One has to wonder why anyone would feel that they know that most of the folks in the media reporting crime a particular way simply do so for PC reasons.”
I never stated that the folks that folks behaved in a certain way for “PC reasons.” In fact, I merely described another example of PC behavior. I have no clue what motivates folks to do what they do and assume that it is a mixture of many things including departmental regulations. It is vastly different to note a behavioral pattern and impute motives to that same behavior.
Perhaps if you argued with what folks actually say, rather than arguing with your reconstruction of what folks actually say, you would have more success. Then, perhaps words such as “hypocrisy” will be unnecessary in your discourse.
I merely stated that I find it curious when folks “think they know†what the motives of folks are….It is so utterly obvious to me that you do not “know†which is why I wrote the words “think they know.â€
Exactly. You used the word “think” for the purpose of expressing that I was wrong when I stated that I “know” a particular thing, when in fact, I never stated that I “know” this particular thing , but rather stated that I “think” this particular thing. This is akin to me saying that I “believe” something which is speculation and not a statement of fact as you implied it to be. La Shawn has repeatedly expressed that there is nothing wrong with speculation.
I never stated that the folks that folks behaved in a certain way for “PC reasons.†In fact, I merely described another example of PC behavior. I have no clue what motivates folks to do what they do and assume that it is a mixture of many things including departmental regulations. It is vastly different to note a behavioral pattern and impute motives to that same behavior.
Political Correctness is a motive and not an action. Saying that something is PC is assigning a motive to that action.
The New Orleans paper, the Times-Picayune, never publishes the race of suspects in any crime. If they publish any description beyond height, weight, or clothing, they will be described as “light complected” or “dark complected”. I once asked one of their reporters about this and he replied that it was the paper’s policy. Obviously it’s a politically correct policy that I find stupid and even negligent in a city with rampant, out of control violent crime.
Being speculative about something does not absolve one from examination of said speculation. For example…paranoid people think things all the time that are not based in reality. In that sense, there is certainly something flawed about the nature of their speculation. Further, folks can exhibit a pattern of speculation that is skewed for one reason or another. I simply found it curious that you “think” that the folks on this board support a position becuase they want to “keep score.” That’s all. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be questioned about your “speculative” assignation of motives to folks.
Political correctness can be a motive OR it can be a proscribed behavior that folks may adopt to avoid a hassle or to follow regulation. I think it is quite possible for an individual to act in a way that is considered to be politically correct simply because it is easier.
When I lived in California a decade and a half ago, former Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates had a radio talk show. One evening he had Maxine Waters as his guest, and they addressed this issue, Gates on the side of releasing the information, Waters against it. Waters kept screaming, “You just don’t get it!” Gates kept saying, “No, I don’t get it. Please explain it to me.”
She never did.
Comments on this entry are closed.