news-record.com

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

Using race as a description

A letter writer wonders why we identified the public officials by race in this story about the proposed downtown hotel.

The News & Record needs to share the blame as well, based on my reading of Sunday’s update (Jan. 31). The article went out of its way to cite comments by the principals in the dispute and then identifies them as either black or white. Why?

Should I change the way I think about a person’s comments because of his race? Definitely not.

We didn't include their race because we wanted you to change the way you think about their comments. We included the racial identification because we thought it informs their comments and help you understand why they said what they said. When the discussion is one that is based on racial politics -- and this discussion is nothing if not that -- then the race of the principals is relevant.

Which of these two sentences is clearer and more informative:

* Skip Alston talks to two city council members about their lack of voter support and a possible recall election.

* Skip Alston, who is black, talks to two white city council members about their lack of black voter support and a possible recall election.

You could do the same with the claim that Deena Hayes makes that opposition to the proposed hotel is racist. The race of the players is a key part of the story.

But we agree with the letter writer that race isn't relevant in all cases. In the typical story about City Council, we rarely mention that Mayor Knight is white or that T. Dianne Bellamy-Small is black. It's usually not relevant.

In the same way, we tend not to identify crime victims and suspects by race because there is rarely evidence that race is involved in the crime. (At least, at the time we're reporting the initial incident.) Even when the perp is at large, we include his race only as part of a longer list of identifying characteristics. Saying that police are looking for a white man in his 20s doesn't narrow the field sufficiently to help anyone identify him.

It does, however, do precisely what the letter writer argues against: Inserts race into a story for no obvious reason.

Sunday update: I am comforted to know that Charles Davenport Jr. disagrees with me. At least, I think he does.

Permalink
Tags: Race

Posted by John Robinson on Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 9:25 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

jeaniegnc

February 6, 2010 - 11:10 am EST

The real problem I have is when you end an article describing a crime with absolutely no description of the person/persons involved with the comment to contact police with any information that you have on the crime. It makes absolutely no sense because you don't know anything other than a crime (robbery, assault, car jacking, etc.) occurred.

John Robinson

February 6, 2010 - 12:46 pm EST

I understand. We publish the descriptions that police give us.

JoeScott

February 7, 2010 - 8:18 am EST

Jeanie,

You forget that there could be a chance that a witness might have seen or overheard something related to the crime being reported. So even if there's no description of a possible suspect, there's still the chance that someone could call in with a tip that could lead to an arrest.

Case in point: The Unabomber, who had no real descriptions of what he looked like and a vague police sketch that could have been anyone. Hearing of the crimes, his brother picked up on certain clues he had witnessed and turned the Unabomber in.

Oona

February 7, 2010 - 12:35 am EST

respectfully, i agree with the letter writer. i moved to greensboro 15 years ago from massachusetts. at that time it was a slap in the face to me how often race was mentioned regarding current events in the local paper. i hadn't heard mention of the civil war other than in history class- but here it was on the editorial page biannually. it just wasn't socially acceptible where i was from, at least in print, to refer to a person's nationality.

if you are giving a description of a criminal that is another thing entirely- blue hair- brown eyes etc.

however, i feel that unless race is removed from the discussion we won't evolve as a society. this applies to local government as well as the media.

someone has to start to rise above it. will it be you?

JoeScott

February 7, 2010 - 8:29 am EST

Oona,

The point being made here is that since principal players in the story were citing racism as the reason for their concerns, it was simply a matter of clarity to bring up the race of the people involved. And as John proves above, if you take out any mention of race, the story suddenly makes no sense.

It's no different than the story I wrote about Leigh Rodenbough, a visual artist who didn't begin his career as a painter until later in life. I don't think age is an important factor to the way we should view people. But since the focus of the story was how Rodenbough waited until after he had raised his kids and retired to become an artist, it was important to mention his age.

Oona

February 7, 2010 - 9:30 am EST

to clarify, i shoud have stated that a criminal who is 'on the loose' should be described by appearance.

i do see your point about the subjects age being integral to the story, and understand that when charges of racism are brought up, the paper is doing it's job in reporting it. perhaps i'm a bit naive not being in the media business.

however, i take issue when a persons race is added to a story as in " he is the first black man to own a business downtown " when you wouldn't say "he was the first irish man to own a business down town"

John Robinson

February 7, 2010 - 9:44 am EST

Yes, we have tried to get away from marking "the first time" stories when it comes to race (and gender, for that matter). These days, being "the first" is hardly newsworthy. In our stories when we look back at history when being the first was significant, we do include it.

However, much as we may try, we do occasionally insert racial identification into stories where it isn't significant or relevant. I just don't think we did it in the case of the hotel.

Oona

February 7, 2010 - 3:27 pm EST

i agree; thanks for your response and for engaging us in this discussion!

Oona

February 7, 2010 - 12:41 am EST

furthermore, think of what we might accomplish re: the recovery bonds if we focus on jobs rather than race. let's not get stuck on that issue, let's come to the table with a clean slate and use this valuable stimulus to benefit the awesome city of greensboro!

John Robinson

February 7, 2010 - 8:07 am EST

So that I understand your request: Are you saying we should not identify people by their race in the hotel story or we shouldn't write about the racial politics involved in it at all?

Oona

February 11, 2010 - 7:21 am EST

that you should not identify people by race.

brian444

February 7, 2010 - 2:36 am EST

It's a tough call, but I would be at least as wary with race in political stories as in criminal ones. The problem with race is that most people believe it shouldn't matter, but that we can't ignore it since it does matter in the real world. So we have to keep paying attention to it--that is, keep reinscribing and reiterating the basis of difference that many (including me) believe would best be ignored since it is arbitrary and imaginary. And of course many (mostly racial minorities) believe that we should ignore race when it's associated with negative things (crime, social dysfunction), but celebrate it when it's associated with positive things (black history month, heritage, etc.).

Personally, I'd be happy to banish racial identification across the board, but that suppressed the historical realities based on a phantasm. In any event, journalists can, at the very least, avoid actively inserting race into stories, a practice that the N&R, IMO, has not avoided.

John Robinson

February 7, 2010 - 8:22 am EST

You might be surprised that I agree with you, brian. One additional observation based purely on anecdotal experience: some white people believe race is relevant when it comes to crime and social dysfunction because they think it reflects poorly on minorities, and think it is irrelevant when it comes to positive things.

I point that out only to suggest that racial ID works both ways.