4 ms·

Do other regular black people appreciate when newspapers do this? Anyone with half a brain knows what it means when the newspaper declines to describe a suspec

Do other regular black people appreciate when newspapers do this? Anyone with half a brain knows what it means when the newspaper declines to describe a suspect. It seems like it will both not have the intended effect of "not perpetuating stereotypes" and signal to everyone else that black people need special treatment. It seems entirely worse in every respect.

ggggtez 5y ago
Mind you: the situation of the above article is related to minor crimes. Not mass shootings (a major crime if I ever heard one!). The reason for not naming people in mass shootings is different. Mass shooters want fame, so you deny them fame by not naming them. Minor criminals have the opposite problem: they can often be rehabilitated back into society after serving their debt to society, but the public shaming of news reports can hamstring them for their entire lives. Entire industries revolve around using SEO tricks to hide people's pasts. It doesn't have to be that way. If someone is arrested for petty theft, maybe it's ok for the news article to just say "A suspect was arrested". I'm not sure naming them actually helps society at large.
zuminator 5y ago
My impression as a black person waiting for the shoe to drop in these delayed ID stories is that the perp turns out to be another black person somewhat less then half the time, and that it's often the case that the police are the ones withholding the identity, not the media. So I think you're making a leap by assuming that such instances are incontrovertibly based on a supposed intention by the media to treat black suspects with kid gloves. Other than the NYT on a good day, I frankly don't see any evidence that the mainstream media have such charitable intentions toward blacks. To answer your question directly, if the suspect is going to end up being publicly ID'd, no I don't appreciate coyness, just come out with it. But I agree with the AP that not all stories are worth divulging the name. I had a girlfriend in my teens whose dad was arrested on suspicion of being in a drug ring, and not only did the tabloid get many details wrong, but of course there was no retraction when he was eventually released without charges. That blurb might be on some old microfilm somewhere but in today's world he would be Googleable forever.

ggggtez 5y ago

Mind you: the situation of the above article is related to minor crimes. Not mass shootings (a major crime if I ever heard one!). The reason for not naming people in mass shootings is different. Mass shooters want fame, so you deny them fame by not naming them. Minor criminals have the opposite problem: they can often be rehabilitated back into society after serving their debt to society, but the public shaming of news reports can hamstring them for their entire lives. Entire industries revolve around using SEO tricks to hide people's pasts. It doesn't have to be that way. If someone is arrested for petty theft, maybe it's ok for the news article to just say "A suspect was arrested". I'm not sure naming them actually helps society at large.

zuminator 5y ago

My impression as a black person waiting for the shoe to drop in these delayed ID stories is that the perp turns out to be another black person somewhat less then half the time, and that it's often the case that the police are the ones withholding the identity, not the media. So I think you're making a leap by assuming that such instances are incontrovertibly based on a supposed intention by the media to treat black suspects with kid gloves. Other than the NYT on a good day, I frankly don't see any evidence that the mainstream media have such charitable intentions toward blacks. To answer your question directly, if the suspect is going to end up being publicly ID'd, no I don't appreciate coyness, just come out with it. But I agree with the AP that not all stories are worth divulging the name. I had a girlfriend in my teens whose dad was arrested on suspicion of being in a drug ring, and not only did the tabloid get many details wrong, but of course there was no retraction when he was eventually released without charges. That blurb might be on some old microfilm somewhere but in today's world he would be Googleable forever.