12 ms·

"There were some old style editors who were still at the Post when I was there. One of them said, 'We don't cover black murders because those are cheap deaths,[

"There were some old style editors who were still at the Post when I was there. One of them said, 'We don't cover black murders because those are cheap deaths,[..]Inside the newsroom some of them would say hello or nod or even speak to me but if they saw me outside the building they would pretend they didn't know me." I honestly can't even imagine what it's like to live like that. Not just the callousness but also just having to deal with it every single day, and probably the indifference by everyone else. Pushing through that over years and decades is really astonishing, I'd have probably given up anything a week in.

imacerealkiller 5y ago
It's sad that we know we would have given up, but for them it's not even an option.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
InitialLastName 5y ago
> One of them said, 'We don't cover black murders because those are cheap deaths,' If anyone ever wondered what attitude triggered the slogan "Black Lives Matter"...
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  google Chicago shootings and then ask yourself why none of it made national headlines. Here is my first search result https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/21/22636162/chicago-weekend-roundup-august-20-23-crime-gun-violence-homicide-police https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/21/22636162/chicag...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dundarious 5y ago
    It’s news in Chicago so the Chicago papers don’t consider it “cheap” just because it’s commonplace. DC had a lot of murders in black neighborhoods too, at least in the past. Shouldn’t the Washington Post, a DC newspaper, cover those in detail? And if the time period of the article doesn’t line up and the murder rate rose later, how are those earlier black victims “cheap deaths” even by that metric? In every circumstance, there appears to be a racist connotation to calling black murders “cheap deaths”.
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    I don't understand what point you're making, but I have noticed that "google Chicago shootings" has become something of a racist dog whistle, so if that's not your intent there may be better phrasing with which to make it.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The point he's making is that despite lip service by the media little has changed.
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        not really. A lot has changed, but not in media. To media all lives are cheap
    - eplanit 5y ago
      The point is black lives seem to matter only if taken by a white police officer. The BLM movement is quite silent regarding other black deaths.
      - mikepurvis 5y ago
        Is it? Definitely the most visible thing was the "defund" thing, but certainly in my circles I saw a lot of interest in reparations, housing reform, health care justice, etc, all with an eye toward addressing the generational economic issues that have led to or at least greatly exacerbated community violence.
      - tom_ 5y ago
        There's nothing wrong with holding the police to higher standards than criminals.
      - rfrey 5y ago
        When the law enforcement institutions are a demonstrable enemy of your community, and seen as a threat rather than a resource, lawlessness will naturally result. The intra-community violence is a symptom (a serious symptom, but a symptom nonetheless) of the systemic problem. One sees the same thing in refugee camps, which I think are directly analogous. The only alternative explanation is "these types of people are violent and lawless by nature", which I do not accept.
- silurian 5y ago
  FTA > She retired from the Post in 2003. Also, it seems as that quote is from her time there in the 60s judging by the surrounding paragraphs (clearer and more explicit) timelines.
- will4274 5y ago
  Your comment hides a lot of depth and comes off as a bit flippant to me. BLM was largely triggered by cop-on-black killings. Civilian black-on-black killings (like those referred to in the quote) continue to get fairly little attention, even from the BLM organizations themselves. Indeed, this is a fairly common conservative criticism of BLM - that it's an anti-police movement, not an anti-black murder movement. (This is not to express an opinion on the criticism, merely to state it's existence.)
  - vmception 5y ago
    Can you explain that criticism? Why, to them, is that related? I've seen it before, and I've seen talk show pundits that they watch say it, but whatever is clicking in their head is not clicking in mine. I am not exactly understanding the train of thought which is being used to invalidate calls for police accountability. I am not seeing it related at all. I guess a stretch would be "black lives don't matter to them so why are they trying to convince us", or maybe its not a stretch to the people that would think that, but its also hard for me to relate to because I don't really get the segregation mentality, it seems dated
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - FactolSarin 5y ago
    Holding police accountable for unreasonable killings is not being anti-police.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      And if that's all BLM did, far fewer people would have any issue with them. But you're simply ignoring reality if you really think that they limit themselves to unreasonable killings.
      - kbenson 5y ago
        Like any and every popular movement, there will people that attach themselves to it to serve their own agenda, sometimes fully self serving, sometimes because they see a platform to advance something they see as extremely important for society, even if many other people disagree on the fundamentals or just the methodology. While missteps of the BLM movement deserve to be called out and criticized, it's also important to remember that great many people are more interested with the original core tenets of the movement and so it's not accurate to paint them all because of the actions of a few. The same goes for the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm sure everyone here could point to bad actions that people have taken in the name of those groups and/or organizations, but that doesn't mean we should assume those negative instances represent the wishes of all the others in that group, or apply the criticism across the entire group when it doesn't reflect a majority of their views. And before people come back with their perceptions of how much of a group believes in and supports the actions of some, it's worth considering that opposition groups will always latch onto the problem people and subgroups and play them up as larger than they are, so the media will almost always either misrepresent them as a larger or smaller portion of that group than they actually are.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This is still the case today, you can tell by which murders get covered in the press.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
What I can't imagine is what it was like to be that person. I wasn't alive (much less socially or politically active) in the time period being described. I'm alive now, when we have similar but different attitudes towards racism and sexism. However, people who I know and respect, who taught me the fundamentals of morality as a child, were those same people in the 60s. What goes on inside the head of a person in this kind of environment? Are they oblivious? Do they rationalize it? Are they conflicted or confused but pressured? How is this cultural attitude maintained in adults or taught in childhood? I'm aware of some similar externally confusing contradictions in my own life - I eat beef and pork at family gatherings, though I believe those animals to be nearly as complex and intelligent as my own beloved dog; my home, vehicles, and lifestyle contribute fewer greenhouse gasses than my neighbors' might but still far more than they must if we're going to reverse climate change; I worry about erosion of privacy and corporate overreach but find the utility of Google's communication and navigation tools and Amazon's low-friction product delivery too compelling to avoid the appalling privacy implications... Will my children and grandchildren look back in horror at how I used to live? Did my parents and grandparents have the same questions and rationalizations about about their own lives? I've asked a few of them, but never gotten an answer that allows me to intuit their perspective.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  Rationalisation mostly. It is fairly easy to rationalize almost anything.

imacerealkiller 5y ago

It's sad that we know we would have given up, but for them it's not even an option.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

InitialLastName 5y ago

> One of them said, 'We don't cover black murders because those are cheap deaths,' If anyone ever wondered what attitude triggered the slogan "Black Lives Matter"...

AzzieElbab 5y ago
google Chicago shootings and then ask yourself why none of it made national headlines. Here is my first search result https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/21/22636162/chicago-weekend-roundup-august-20-23-crime-gun-violence-homicide-police https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/21/22636162/chicag...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dundarious 5y ago
  It’s news in Chicago so the Chicago papers don’t consider it “cheap” just because it’s commonplace. DC had a lot of murders in black neighborhoods too, at least in the past. Shouldn’t the Washington Post, a DC newspaper, cover those in detail? And if the time period of the article doesn’t line up and the murder rate rose later, how are those earlier black victims “cheap deaths” even by that metric? In every circumstance, there appears to be a racist connotation to calling black murders “cheap deaths”.
- hairofadog 5y ago
  I don't understand what point you're making, but I have noticed that "google Chicago shootings" has become something of a racist dog whistle, so if that's not your intent there may be better phrasing with which to make it.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The point he's making is that despite lip service by the media little has changed.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      not really. A lot has changed, but not in media. To media all lives are cheap
  - eplanit 5y ago
    The point is black lives seem to matter only if taken by a white police officer. The BLM movement is quite silent regarding other black deaths.
    - mikepurvis 5y ago
      Is it? Definitely the most visible thing was the "defund" thing, but certainly in my circles I saw a lot of interest in reparations, housing reform, health care justice, etc, all with an eye toward addressing the generational economic issues that have led to or at least greatly exacerbated community violence.
    - tom_ 5y ago
      There's nothing wrong with holding the police to higher standards than criminals.
    - rfrey 5y ago
      When the law enforcement institutions are a demonstrable enemy of your community, and seen as a threat rather than a resource, lawlessness will naturally result. The intra-community violence is a symptom (a serious symptom, but a symptom nonetheless) of the systemic problem. One sees the same thing in refugee camps, which I think are directly analogous. The only alternative explanation is "these types of people are violent and lawless by nature", which I do not accept.
silurian 5y ago
FTA > She retired from the Post in 2003. Also, it seems as that quote is from her time there in the 60s judging by the surrounding paragraphs (clearer and more explicit) timelines.
will4274 5y ago
Your comment hides a lot of depth and comes off as a bit flippant to me. BLM was largely triggered by cop-on-black killings. Civilian black-on-black killings (like those referred to in the quote) continue to get fairly little attention, even from the BLM organizations themselves. Indeed, this is a fairly common conservative criticism of BLM - that it's an anti-police movement, not an anti-black murder movement. (This is not to express an opinion on the criticism, merely to state it's existence.)
- vmception 5y ago
  Can you explain that criticism? Why, to them, is that related? I've seen it before, and I've seen talk show pundits that they watch say it, but whatever is clicking in their head is not clicking in mine. I am not exactly understanding the train of thought which is being used to invalidate calls for police accountability. I am not seeing it related at all. I guess a stretch would be "black lives don't matter to them so why are they trying to convince us", or maybe its not a stretch to the people that would think that, but its also hard for me to relate to because I don't really get the segregation mentality, it seems dated
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- FactolSarin 5y ago
  Holding police accountable for unreasonable killings is not being anti-police.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    And if that's all BLM did, far fewer people would have any issue with them. But you're simply ignoring reality if you really think that they limit themselves to unreasonable killings.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      Like any and every popular movement, there will people that attach themselves to it to serve their own agenda, sometimes fully self serving, sometimes because they see a platform to advance something they see as extremely important for society, even if many other people disagree on the fundamentals or just the methodology. While missteps of the BLM movement deserve to be called out and criticized, it's also important to remember that great many people are more interested with the original core tenets of the movement and so it's not accurate to paint them all because of the actions of a few. The same goes for the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm sure everyone here could point to bad actions that people have taken in the name of those groups and/or organizations, but that doesn't mean we should assume those negative instances represent the wishes of all the others in that group, or apply the criticism across the entire group when it doesn't reflect a majority of their views. And before people come back with their perceptions of how much of a group believes in and supports the actions of some, it's worth considering that opposition groups will always latch onto the problem people and subgroups and play them up as larger than they are, so the media will almost always either misrepresent them as a larger or smaller portion of that group than they actually are.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

This is still the case today, you can tell by which murders get covered in the press.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

What I can't imagine is what it was like to be that person. I wasn't alive (much less socially or politically active) in the time period being described. I'm alive now, when we have similar but different attitudes towards racism and sexism. However, people who I know and respect, who taught me the fundamentals of morality as a child, were those same people in the 60s. What goes on inside the head of a person in this kind of environment? Are they oblivious? Do they rationalize it? Are they conflicted or confused but pressured? How is this cultural attitude maintained in adults or taught in childhood? I'm aware of some similar externally confusing contradictions in my own life - I eat beef and pork at family gatherings, though I believe those animals to be nearly as complex and intelligent as my own beloved dog; my home, vehicles, and lifestyle contribute fewer greenhouse gasses than my neighbors' might but still far more than they must if we're going to reverse climate change; I worry about erosion of privacy and corporate overreach but find the utility of Google's communication and navigation tools and Amazon's low-friction product delivery too compelling to avoid the appalling privacy implications... Will my children and grandchildren look back in horror at how I used to live? Did my parents and grandparents have the same questions and rationalizations about about their own lives? I've asked a few of them, but never gotten an answer that allows me to intuit their perspective.

chrismcb 5y ago
Rationalisation mostly. It is fairly easy to rationalize almost anything.