Can’t Mention a Suspect’s Race?

Posted on Sunday, February 9, 2014 by Post Scripts

by Jack

Chico – a 21 year old female reported an attempted kidnapping right off a public sidewalk, but she was able to fight off the attacker who attempted to place a plastic bag over her head as he shoved her into his car. The ER story carried this description of the attacker: “30 to 35 years old male and wearing dark clothing”

I find it hard to believe that’s the best description the victim could provide. So, if the police have more, but are reluctant to say it, why not just say police declined to release a full description as of press time? Because the description above is almost worthless. We don’t even known the suspect’s race.

I mention this only because I have a concern that sometimes the media (not saying the E-R) tends to show bias and defers to political correctness. That is, they filter out parts of news for their own politics, thus discounting the public’s right to know. Was this the case in the ER’s article? Sorry, but I flunked mind reading; personally I would like to think they just missed it, but it got me thinking about other articles in other papers.

My opinion is this… I’ve noticed a growing trend in the media to be politically biased. This includes when the suspect is I’D.’d as a minority and the media sometimes thinks it’s best to not report the race because it gives that minority group a bad rap. I don’t understand the logic behind this, because race should not play a role in how the media reports a news story.

The media should not filter the news and tell us only what they think is best for us to hear, that’s not their job!  The media’s job is to report the news accurately and honesty and earn the public trust for journalistic integrity, something that is sorely lacking these days. 

Due to the vague description in our story I called the Chico Police Dept. and according to them the suspect’s race was noted in the original press release as Hispanic or possibly White. 

                     ____________________________

Here’s a good link to illustrate what I’m saying… http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/10/01/political-correctness-and-media-idiocy-go-hand-in-hand/

Excerpt from the article above,   “…Police describe the suspect as a man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, approximately 18 to 20 years old.

Wow, really? That’s all you have? As it turns out, it wasn’t. When the story first ran, the description identified the suspect as a black male. Why then had the suspect’s race been edited out of the story with no editor’s note or explanation?”

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Can’t Mention a Suspect’s Race?

  1. Chris says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Any evidence, other than anecdotes, that show this to be an actual “trend?”

  2. J. Soden says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 11:39 am

    Good Grief! Political correctness run amok.

    Guess the police can just check a box on the report form, either white, black, brown, yellow, orange, purple, green(in case of space aliens) instead of mentioning race and everyone will be happy!

  3. Pete says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    You’re right! This is just another example of the extremely liberal and leftist ER being all politically correct! Or perhaps it’s just sloppy reporting…

    KHSL, on the other hand, did report the suspect as white or Hispanic.

    Your posts are becoming a little paranoid.

  4. Tina says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Paranoid?

    In an era when the atmosphere of political correctness has been taken to skyscraper heights there is reason to question and be concerned, remember:

    National Review:

    Something akin to that creepy groupthink arose when the Obama administration took power and sought to reformulate the so-called war on terror. Almost immediately, Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other group to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism — not to mention a war against it — was supposedly a Bush-administration construct unfairly aimed at Muslims.

    Obama apparently sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability. …Shortly after assuming office as the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano associated the prior “war on terror” with a “politics of fear”: “In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” Again, one wishes to ask her how many Christians have been targeted by Obama-administration Predator drones.

    Various members of the Defense Department soon were plugged into the new narrative of “this administration” and, as good automatons, were eager to spread the Borg directives. A memo sent by the Defense Department’s security office to Pentagon staff members read, “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

    After the Fort Hood shootings, the Defense Department characterized the murders as “workplace violence,” despite the known fact that Major Hasan had been interviewed by the FBI because of his correspondence with the radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, and even though he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed twelve soldiers and one civilian and wounded more than 30 others.

    Then there’s the unfortunate position taken by AG Eric Holder:

    In June 2009, during his testimony before a Senate panel considering new hate crimes legislation, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly suggested that any new laws passed would not apply to white victims. When Sen. Jeff Sessions pressed Holder into saying exactly who would be protected under such laws, Holder gave his opinion that only those who have been subjected to “the unfortunate history of our nation,” should receive the added protection.

    May 15, 2012

    In June 2009, during his testimony before a Senate panel considering new hate crimes legislation, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly suggested that any new laws passed would not apply to white victims. When Sen. Jeff Sessions pressed Holder into saying exactly who would be protected under such laws, Holder gave his opinion that only those who have been subjected to “the unfortunate history of our nation,” should receive the added protection.
    More Photos
    1 photo

    Last summer, dozens of so-called ‘flash mob’ attacks were committed by black teenagers on white victims…both President Obama’s and Eric Holder’s silence on this issue spoke volumes.

    More recently, there has been a rash of black-on-white violence since the Trayvon Martin shooting. In fact, at least one of the attackers reportedly told his victim the blows he was receiving were in retribution for the Trayvon tragedy.

    Remember too the local paper reporting on the Trayvon Martin incident characterized him as a “white Hispanic,” a term never before used to my knowledge in any reporting anywhere!

    This administration has ruled by division pitting classes and races against each other and changing the language to distort the truth.

    If there is paranoia out here it has been created by the leader of the country!

    Perhaps some of the newspapers fear using the correct descriptive words. We have seen this administration use its power to harass and threaten those who don’t tow the new PC line.

  5. Pete says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    Tina,
    I’ve found that if one can’t make their point in a few sentences then they’re probably full of…

    You’ve somehow taken a poorly written article in the ER and tried to turn it into a grand government conspiracy.

    Okay, you’ve convinced me…

    You and Jack are in no way paranoid. Lol

  6. Tina says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Pete I’ve found that if the first thing a guy turns to is insult his position is usually very weak…so much for the preliminaries!

    I’m afraid you misunderstand.

    I didn’t try to turn “a poorly written article’ (your words not mine) and “turn it into a grand government conspiracy”.

    There is nothing grand about the current government!

    I did assert, however, that the atmosphere created by the leadership in this country would be reason enough for a journalist to write an article that leaves out the race of a suspect. There is no conspiracy, just an intentional effort to control the narrative. You have to be blind not to see it…or incredibly PC yourself.

    “Okay, you’ve convinced me…”

    This wouldn’t be insincerity in search of a laugh would it?

    Whatever it is your comments are always welcome on Post Scripts, Pete. I hope you will join us again.

  7. Tina says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    Pete you did alert me to extraneous material that should have been left out in a previous comment…it’s been removed. Thanks.

  8. Post Scripts says:
    Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    Pete, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I never said our ER article was anything, I reported the facts and left the rest to the reader to reach their own conclusions. I did raise my own personal concern that sometimes the news does filter out information under the guise of political correctness. Don’t call me paranoid for thinking this, it’s not said without evidence. And we’ve all seen times where the news media has played down a black on white crime and reversed that for a white on black crime. I believe both should be treated the same. If you want me to cite a litany of examples I probably could, but then you would be no more convinced then than you are now. You can remain a mushroom, I prefer the daylight. -Jack

  9. Libby says:
    Monday, February 10, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I giggled myself silly. The ER, a liberal rag? Since when did this change in editorial policy occur?

    I expect this might be yet another manifestion of that far-right RINO craziness. You all need to form yourselves into a third party … and then a fourth, and then a fifth … all fragmented into your progressive gradations of paranoia.

    Unhappily, that Chico PD press release is not up on the city site yet. When it is …

Comments are closed.