A few days ago I e-mailed the Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal -- a Gannett newspaper -- asking why this article failed to mentioned the race of the assailants who have been victimizing Hispanics recently. (The assailants are black). After all, police reports noted it, as well as local radio stations. The paper responded and included their editorial policy regarding such matters, apparently established by an assistant managing editor. The paper says it's "not about being politically correct;" you be the judge:
Our policy is not about being politically correct, it's about being accurate. Race is such an unreliable descriptor. What race is Halle Berry or Tiger Woods or Jennifer Lopez? They are extreme examples, but project them onto everyday people and you see the problem.
Or what real information is conveyed in a description that says: She is a 5-foot-6-inch white woman with brown hair? How many women fit that description? Who is that of use to? By the way, that description is of me -- and I haven't committed any crimes.
I offer you these excerpts from Keith M. Woods, a noted journalism scholar, in an essay called "The Language of Race": "What, for example, does a Hispanic man look like? Is his skin dark brown? Reddish brown? Pale? Is his hair straight? Curly? Course? Fine? Does he have a flat, curved nose or is it narrow and straight? Telling the public that he’s 5-foot-8, 180 pounds, with a blue shirt and blue jeans says something about the person’s appearance. But what do you add to that picture when you say Latino?
"And what is black? It’s the color of pitch. Yet, the word is used to describe people whose skin tones can cover just about every racial and ethnic group in theworld, including white people. What does the word "black" add to the mental picture the public draws? How do you draw the lips? The eyes? The nose? What sort of hair does a black person have? What color skin does a black person have? The combinations are infinite.
"All racial and ethnic groups do share some common physical characteristics. Still, we don’t see the phrase "Irish-looking man" in the newspaper, though red hair and pale skin are common Irish characteristics. Would a picture come to mind if a TV anchor said, "The suspect appeared to be Italian"? Couldn’t many of us conjure an image if the police said they were looking for a middle-aged man described as "Jewish-looking."
"There are good reasons those descriptions never see the light of day. They generalize. They stereotype. And they require that everyone who hears the description has the same idea of what those folks look like. All Irish-Americans don’t look alike. Why, then, accept a description that says a suspect was African-American?
When police have a surveillance photo of a suspect or a sketch -- by far the best way to help citizens identify someone sought by the police -- we are happy to run that.
Personally, I am struck by the absolute arrogance of this. Remember, the police report and local radio all included the race of the attackers in their reports of the incidents against local Hispanics. (Note, too, the irony that "Hispanic" was used in the News Journal to describe the victims) Consider:
- She is a 5-foot-6-inch white woman with brown hair? How many women fit that description? Who is that of use to?
If there was a killer out there, wouldn't you want this information -- to narrow down the number of potential suspects just a little?
- Telling the public that he’s 5-foot-8, 180 pounds, with a blue shirt and blue jeans says something about the person’s appearance. But what do you add to that picture when you say Latino?
Quite a lot, actually. You've now excluded a TON of potential suspects. And doesn't the editor realize that this 5-foot-8, 180 lb. man can actually change his "blue shirt" and "blue jeans" -- but not his race?
- Still, we don’t see the phrase "Irish-looking man" in the newspaper, though red hair and pale skin are common Irish characteristics. Would a picture come to mind if a TV anchor said, "The suspect appeared to be Italian"? Couldn’t many of us conjure an image if the police said they were looking for a middle-aged man described as "Jewish-looking."
That's right, we don't see the phrase "Irish-looking man." We do see -- and should see -- the phrase "white man with pale complexion and red hair." "Irish" is not a race, after all. Nor is "Jewish."
- "There are good reasons those descriptions never see the light of day. They generalize. They stereotype. And they require that everyone who hears the description has the same idea of what those folks look like. All Irish-Americans don’t look alike. Why, then, accept a description that says a suspect was African-American?
See response above. "Irish" is not a race much like "Nigerian" is not. But "white" is a race as is "black." In the US, "black" is synonymous with "African-American" (due to, I might add, the insistence of [some] black leaders). This is why the public would be best informed if the race of police suspects was revealed along with other information. But here you have it -- to the News Journal, valuable information for the public isn't as paramount as being fearful of "stereotyping" a group of people. Despite what the NJ says to the contrary, this is the epitome of political correctness.
(Cross-posted at The Colossus of Rhodey.)
