If there is one thing we learn from the current “state of the art” in media reportage, it is that, when the perpetrators are Black, there is a good possibility that the reportage will pretend not to know their race.
We saw that yesterday, with Washington Post reporter Peter Hermann\’s article about a woman being attacked by teenagers, in which he told us that “Police had no description of the teens”….even though the first sentenced of the police report identified them as Black males.
Now, today, we have this – also written by Peter Hermann (and Dana Hedgepeth):
A large group of juveniles robbed a clothing store inGeorgetown on Tuesday evening and stole $13,000 worth of items, according toD.C. police.
The police had no physical description of the suspects other than that they looked young? The store employees didn\’t see the thieves who were in front of their faces stealing those clothes?
This reeks with dishonesty.
And, to make matters even worse, the article goes on to indirectly attack the stores in that area over allegations that they racially profile. If the race of the suspects were unknown, why would that have been there?
In yesterday\’s blog, I pointed out that when reporters intentionally avoid mentioning people\’s race, because of their race, that makes them racists.
I therefore will ask the same questions for this article that I did yesterday:
Who is the racist?
Is it Peter Hermann? Dana Hedgepeth? The copy editor who removed that information from Hermann\’s article?
Or is it all of them: Hermann and Hedgepeth for pretending that there was no racial description of the suspects, and the copy editor for allowing the lie to find its way into print?
It seems to me that Peter Hermann, Dana Hedgepeth and the Washington Post owe us an explanation..