If you missed WaPo ombudsman Michael Getler’s last two columns, you should go back and read them. Before you eat breakfast. In yesterday’s column, the Style editor basically tells readers who complained about Robin Givhan’s obnoxious “fashion”-cloaked political hit piece on John Robert’s family to bug off:

Style’s editor, Deborah Heard, said: “I thought it was a smart, thoughtful discussion of fashion and the messages inherent in the choices people make, especially when they’re presenting themselves in public forums. I think it was fair commentary. Style covers politics as well as fashion. Robin expertly connects the two. My answer to people who disagree is that I respect their right to do so.”

Getler himself dismisses a significant portion of irate readers, who he sniffs were “inspired by partisan Web sites.” And what exactly does he consider the serial GOP-basher Givhan?

In last week’s column, which I overlooked, Getler highlights an appalling–and potentially deadly–whitewashing that the WaPo gave to a local crime story. Rather than inform readers of the exact description of murder suspects on the loose in Prince George’s County, the newspaper stripped out basic details included in the police bulletin identifying the alleged killers as young, black males with distinct features. From Getler’s column:

The [WaPo] story reported that: “Police are looking for the gunmen, described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan.”

The news release put out by the Prince George’s County Police Department was more specific. It said: “The four suspects are described as black males, possibly late teens or early twenties. One of the suspects is about 5′7″, 22-25 years old, wearing a gray long sleeve T-shirt, and cornrow hairstyle. The suspect’s vehicle is described as a newer model tan or beige/light colored sedan.” The Post did not report the race of the suspects or the details that were available on one of them.

When I asked editors about this, they cited the paper’s guidelines on race and relevancy. The guidelines say: “In general, race and ethnic background should not be mentioned unless they are clearly relevant. They are obviously relevant in stories about civil rights issues, the problems or achievements of minority groups, cultural history and racial conflict. They are also relevant and should be used in crime stories when we have enough specific identifying information to publish a police description of a suspect who is being sought.”

Metro editors said it was their “view that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black men about 5′7″ with cornrows between ages 22-25 in Prince George’s and (nearby) D.C. That is not specific enough detail to avoid a mass of innocent black men being ’suspects.’ ” Metro’s top editor, Robert McCartney, said, “This strikes me as a judgment call: How specific does the description need to be before we provide the identifying information?” Our experienced editors, he said, “thought this call was the right one, given Post Stylebook guidelines.”

Here’s what a reader in Prince George’s County said: “There are evidently four violent murderers of random civilians at large in the county in which I live.” He then cited The Post’s description of the suspects and added, “That is not true. The police are looking for people using a more specific description than that, one that includes race. The Post took that information out. I know The Post usually defends this practice by saying that ‘four white teenagers’ [or African American or Asian American or Latino teenagers] provides information that is no more useful than saying ‘two teenagers.’ Maybe. The police certainly disagree. I think I do, too. But once you’ve added the fact that the murderers are driving a ‘newer model tan or light-colored sedan,’ any additional descriptive factor at all becomes powerful, enough for investigators to do effective work with. It’s also useful information for those of us filling up our gas tanks at 7 a.m. near where the robbers/murderers prowl.

“The Post’s decision to strip useful identifying information out of its crime stories strikes me not only as empirically wrong but also paternalistic,” he said. “I suppose it would be ad hominem for me to add that those of us who live in the areas suffering waves of violent crime care more about this stuff than do senior editors.”

The Post’s message to vulnerable families who might be victimized as a result of the paper’s obtuse anti-profiling stance? Bug off.

The newspaper’s political agenda and p.c. pandering trump fairness, accuracy, and public safety.

Your friendly neighborhood MSM at work.

Update: Check out related posts from Ankle Biting Pundits on columnist Sebastian Mallaby’s cheap shot at President Bush and the news side’s comfort with racially profiling….white males.

comments (0)   trackbacks (6)