MSM Racial Skullduggery V

Another of the exceptionally rare media admissions of guilt.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/COLUMNISTS07/703040372/-1/ZONES04
A caution on suspect descriptions

(the article page has a comments function)
(IndyStar’s contact page)

(Indianapolis Star, IndyStar.com, Gannett Co. Inc., Gannett Foundation, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address))

March 4, 2007

Last week we faced one of the more challenging decisions editors ever face, and we didn’t handle it well.
It involved the carjacking/robbery/rape of a young woman after she entered her car in a Downtown parking ramp. Police said the assailant was a black male in his late teens, small thin build, approximately 5 foot 8 with medium complexion and short hair. He was wearing a blue polo shirt with thin yellow and white stripes, and blue pants.
We didn’t publish that description. Why?

Because the suspect was black.

Lacking, to my surprise, a written approach for dealing with such matters we operated under the common newspaper standard to be wary of all such descriptions because they most often are so vague as to be meaningless.

There’s nothing vague about that description. It narrowed the possible suspects down to roughly 1-2% of the population, before adjusting for local demographics.

Does it really help to know that an assailant was, say, a 6-foot-2 blond, upper middle-age white male? Not really.

Of course it does. Not as much as the description the author censored, but it helps.

Those guys are everywhere. I’m one of them. But at least when somebody of that description is mentioned, every one of the huge selection of men in my universe isn’t thought of as a potential criminal.
Now substitute a black male with black hair. All of a sudden all black men of that description are considered suspect.
That’s an injustice from my perspective and from the perspective of most other editors.

No, all of a sudden all black men of that description can’t be ruled out. That’s not an injustice, it’s a fact, inherently neither just nor unjust.

Most Americans, when they think of crime, fall victim to a racial stereotype.

Frankly, that’s none of the author’s goddamned business. We don’t buy the paper (i.e., pay his goddamned salary) to tell us how to interpret the facts. Either the media needs to come out and announce they’ve given up the news business (and by announce I don’t mean the way they “announce” error corrections), and drop their neutrality charade, or they need to do what they claim they do.

Let’s be honest. When black men commit crimes there is an unfair tendency to blame all black men. Not so with whites.

Let’s be honest. It’s none of this blond bimbo’s goddamned business what our tendencies are, much less whether they’re unfair or not. Even if some do share this tendency, why in God’s name should I have to suffer for it? It’s NOT OKAY to stereotype blacks, but it IS OKAY to stereotype readers (white readers, of course).

Here’s another truth: When The Star doesn’t print a description of a black suspect alleged to have been involved in a crime, my phone will ring and my e-mails will pile up with messages that angrily accuse us of bowing to the evil forces of political correctness.
When the authorities seek a white suspect and we don’t print the description, I don’t hear a peep. That speaks volumes, don’t you think?

Yes, it tells me the readership is growing less and less tolerant of the media’s ongoing campaign to cover up black crime.

That doesn’t mean we should have a blanket prohibition against using suspect descriptions. After reviewing policies of several newspapers and discussing the matter with colleagues, including our public safety team, we decided on this policy:
“We will publish descriptions of suspects from public officials or eyewitnesses only when the descriptions are distinct enough to differentiate the person from all but a narrow group of people. The description would likely include a combination of physical characteristics and other identifiers such as age, race, height, weight, hair color, haircut, tattoos, scars, clothing, jewelry, glasses, getaway cars, etc. The use of such descriptions is likely to be rare and must be approved by a senior editor.”

So now they’ve formalized their peecee ritual. Yippee.

Every situation is different, which is why the above statement is inadequate without some discussion points, which we are providing in question form:

Is racial identification relevant to the story and if so can we explain why?

If the story is about a suspect at large, then racial identification is ipso facto relevant. To fail to report it is gross malfeasance. If the story is about a suspect already apprehended, to fail to report it is simple malfeasance, as it plays into the media industry’s propaganda campaign in favor of blacks and against whites; photos should be provided where available, making descriptions unnecessary.

This should be S.O.P. for the media. They’ve already proven their total lack of judgement on this issue via decades of industry-wide, systematic malfeasance; now they should enact the equivalent of a 12 step program to avoid any appearance of impropriety, by publishing descriptions of every suspect mentioned, where available, and photos of every suspect apprehended, where available. If publishing costs are an issue the photos can be placed online.

Remember that ethnicity isn’t necessarily an indication of skin color and that race often is not easily definable. There are black Latinos, and white Latinos, for example.

That’s it blondie, drag a red herring across the trail and pray.

What is the potential of our decision adding to unfair stereotypes?

WHO is this guy to decide what’s fair and unfair, much less withhold information on that basis? And WHY do we only get this information once every couple of years from some backwater paper?

Most important, is a description of a suspect so sketchy that a suspect could not be identified in a crowd of people, or is it specific enough to be useful? A 5-foot-10 white male wearing glasses and a knit golf shirt doesn’t offer much. A 5-foot-10 white male with a blond crew cut, a tattoo on his left arm, a diamond earring in his left ear, and wearing glasses and a green knit golf shirt provides much more to go on.

What is he suggesting? Seems to me he’s suggesting nothing is better than something.

My gut tells me that we should have provided the police description of the suspect last week. Bystanders who may have seen the suspect and, learning of that description, may have been able to provide helpful information to the police. (And we should have given the story stronger play in the paper.)

His “gut” tells him. My gut tells me if he had any he’d be anything but a journalist, a job where gutlessness is a requirement.

Maybe someone from Resisting Defamation can write this up in a more scholarly fashion; I’m too busy wishing I could grab this lying bastard up by his lapels to write about him with circumspection.

(Indianapolis Star, IndyStar.com, Gannett Co. Inc., Gannett Foundation, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address))

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 02:28 PM in
Comments (11) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Andy Wooster on March 05, 2007, 03:57 PM | #

His “gut” tells him. My gut tells me if he had any he’d be anything but a journalist, a job where gutlessness is a requirement.

Journalists are the scum of the earth. Loathsome invertebrates, almost to a man. Actually, I’m probably not being fair. Other loathsome invertebrates—mosquitoes, ticks, and leeches, for example—would probably be insulted to be compared to people like the editor of the Indy Star.

Maybe someone from Resisting Defamation can write this up in a more scholarly fashion; I’m too busy wishing I could grab this lying bastard up by his lapels to write about him with circumspection.

I was doing an unrelated Google search a few days ago when I came across a result from a media watchdog group criticizing Rush Limbaugh for calling Barack Obama “half a minority” or a “quasi-minority” or some other similarly harmless nonsense.

The spectacle of it made me sit back and chuckle. Here we have the rabidly pro-black and virulently leftist mainstream media on the one hand. At the same time, we also have numerous media watchdog groups whose job it is to criticize the MSM for being insufficiently leftist and pro-black! Where are the rightist/pro-white watchdog groups? God knows there’s a market for it.

At the time, I had the same though Svigor had. It would be much more effective for a group like Resisting Defamation to chronicle these accounts than to write a letter to the editor every time a Jewish journalist uses the term “WASP”.

But I don’t want to tell anyone how to live his life.

Posted by jrackell on March 05, 2007, 03:57 PM | #

Kudos. Great piece, and amusing too with just the right amount of invective.

This technique of a line-by-line close rebuttal is perfect for skewering the mainstream media, especially its tone of editorial self-righteousness and sanctimony - and the technique is measure-made for the web. Journalist editorials have no more credibility than blog entries - a lot less in fact.

I disagree somewhat (I think you are implying this anyway) that giving the suspect’s race helps the public and or police in meaningfully identifying the culprit.

But you’re dead right that denying us this information is part of the media’s disinformation campaign specifically directed against whites. Our interest in the suspect’s race is part of keeping the score (without violating anyone’s presumption of innocence, after all the suspect may never be apprehended but his race is still relevant to the crime that did occur). And they certainly don’t want us to know the score.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 05, 2007, 05:27 PM | #

I disagree somewhat (I think you are implying this anyway) that giving the suspect’s race helps the public and or police in meaningfully identifying the culprit.

My point is basically that information is not binary - any information is better than none, some is better than any, lots is better than some, etc.

Imagine you’ve just heard the description the author disparages on the radio; now you can rule out LOTS and LOTS of people vis-a-vis who you’re giving extra scrutiny; might help you notice that blood on the blond, six-foot white guy’s shirt, or his nervous behavior, etc.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 05, 2007, 05:33 PM | #

I’d also like to add that “driving while black” is, in part, just negroids whining about living on planet Earth like the rest of us. I’ve been stopped more than once for matching a description. It cost me roughly an hour of my life, total. Boo…fucking…hoo. Where’s my violin?

Posted by Daniel J on March 05, 2007, 06:58 PM | #

Amen!

Let’s be honest. When black men commit crimes there is an unfair tendency to blame all black men. Not so with whites.

Let’s be really honest. Black men commit a disproportionately large amount of crime.

I disagree somewhat (I think you are implying this anyway) that giving the suspect’s race helps the public and or police in meaningfully identifying the culprit. -jrackell

It is helpful if people that were around/at the scene saw the actual perp and were able to provide even more accurate descriptions. Or perhaps know him and can somehow connect the event to him.

This is how I ended up in jail. (Where I belonged at the time)

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 05, 2007, 08:26 PM | #

Hi guys, we did respond to this nastiness by email a little earlier and we appreciate your confidence. All in a day’s work. Here goes:

************************

——- Original Message——-
From: Stanley Womack
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Identifying Rapists Is To Protect The Community

Dear Dennis:

You left-wing racialists have a serious problem in providing professional news reporting to the community. You have an obligation to provide as clear a description of a person as possible when that person is still at large. I noticed that your new policy failed to distinguish between dangerous predators at large and dangerous predators behind bars.

When you neglect to identify a predator at large, you are endangering the local population of any color. Your duty to the public overall supercedes your delicate feelings.

Your new policy fails to make this distinction, and thus is harmful to the public at large and defamatory to all men who will be viewed as possible rapists and predators.

And thanks for implying that European Americans cannot withstand the forces of bigotry. You misjudge and smear us, even if you happen to look like one of us. What a self-hating racist you are.

Stanley Womack

www.ResistingDefamation.org

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 08, 2007, 09:04 PM | #

Ryerson is sending around an email asking people who wrote to him for permission to quote their emails. Just a heads-up.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 10, 2007, 03:38 PM | #

Yes Dennis, you may quote my post above about wanting to grab you up by your lapels (the only part of my post “fit” for professional “journalism”).

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 12, 2007, 02:21 PM | #

Here is Dennis Ryerson’s follow-up column with quotes from commenters. I note he ignores any comment that seeks to distinguish between perpetrators at large and perpetrators behind bars, a truly fundamental distinction in disclosures about descriptions.

*********

The Indianapolis Star
www.Indystar.com

March 11, 2007

Dennis Ryerson
Readers react, with emotion, to description policy
March 11, 2007

Last Sunday’s column, explaining our new policy regarding the use of police descriptions of crime suspects, generated a hefty response.

I wrote that, like most newspapers, The Star did not use descriptions of crime suspects because they often were so vague as to be of little use other than branding entire classes of people as suspects. I noted that because we lacked a written policy, we had mishandled a recent case involving the rape/carjacking/robbery of a woman entering her car in a Downtown garage.

If you’d like to read the column, which includes our policy, please go to IndyStar.com and in the “Opinion” pull-down go to “Columnists.”

Here are some of the more than 80 comments I received from readers.

• “Why does The Star think that it is so smart that it can determine whether a police description of a suspect should be told to its readers? . . . Why do police reports make note of the apparent race of a suspect if such information is irrelevant? Is The Star smarter than our law enforcement authorities?’’—Carter Boyd

• “I read your hilariously tortured editorial . . . about your thought process (or lack of one).
“I will use a quote from an independent black scholar named John McWhorter from the book ‘Arrogance’ (by Bernard Goldberg). ‘Nowadays, well-intentioned white people worry more than anything else about being considered racist. They consider it their duty to bend over as far backward as they can, at least in public, toward the black victim routine.
‘To question that routine for many is to be morally irresponsible—or worse, to risk being tarred as a racist. And this is particularly true in the media, where what you say is so public.’ ”—Ken Lewis

• “So let’s just do this for now. Just state that the suspect, who we all agree is a danger to every man, woman and child in our city, is a human or OTHER. That should protect you and The Star’s image, don’t you think? It doesn’t matter if the people are safer or better informed just so The Star doesn’t look racist, just stupid. My son’s 8th grade journalist class could have done a better job.”—James Oliver

• “Please allow me to thank you for showing some sensitivity. . . . Inconsistency and insensitivity is a trademark of Indiana newspapers and I’m sure that’s the way most of your audience wants it to remain.
“Henceforth, if you don’t mention the race, and it turns out that the culprit is black, I’ll wager the farm that many of your adoring readers will hop on you as quick as a flea . . . ”—Charlene Duline

• “I must say I did not come away with the impression from reading your article that you were accusing white readers of being morally deficient or racist, but I notice no one (in the TalkBack online reaction to the column) commented on your contention that you get no calls or complaints when suspect descriptions of white perpetrators are omitted.
“Overall, I think your policy seems thoughtful and fair.”—Mark A. Russell

A footnote: Our old, unwritten rule did not allow for exceptions. I wanted a new policy that did. I think it worked on Friday morning when Tom Leyden on our Web staff brought me a story about a homicide on the Northeastside of town.

Should we use the description of two individuals the police were looking for in connection with the crime?

After conferring with Managing Editor Pam Fine and reviewing our new policy, I found the answer to be an easy call. Police said they were seeking a black man with a gray beard in his 50s, a black woman also in her 50s, thin and with long, straight hair, both seen leaving the crime scene in a ragged, light blue van.

The combination was sufficient enough to allow its use.

Thanks for your comments, and for reading The Indianapolis Star.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2007, 04:51 PM | #

What a lowlife.

Next entry: Majority Report Roundup for 20070305

Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: This is what it will look like

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa