This totally mystifies me. The basic premise is that the Arkansas
Democrat was now printing the race of the criminals who are raping or
mugging or attacking people in the area and the question is whether they
should do this or not. Nobody, least of all me, said anything about
only printing this when the criminal is non-white and yet the responder
immediately jumped on the idea that the racial description is all too
often used only when the alleged criminal is not white. I bet the
victims are feeling all warm and fuzzy because they were attacked by
someone and the race cannot be printed because potentially white
criminals would not be identified as such while all others would be.
And the source of this story is a Journalism School - the Poynter
Journalism School in Florida. Sorry but their logic truly escapes me
totally.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--- Begin Message ---
Rod Paul wrote, in response to rhomp2002:
Because, as in your own examples, the racial description all too often is used
only when the alleged criminal is not White.
Link to comment: http://disq.us/2w4o5f
rhomp2002 wrote:
I fail to see why this would be controversial at all. If you have a rapist out
there and he is Chinese or Hispanic or African American, then say so.
Otherwise all the women would be scared to talk to anyone at all. It just
seems stupid to say that a man around 6 feet tall and weighing 180 lb raped 5
women in a neighborhood and then not say that he was African American could not
be more stupid IMNSHO. You need to give people the information they need to
deal with what is out there on the street.
-----
Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.
To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/
--- End Message ---