Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by shureluck on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @06:36PM
(#23981416)
I fail to see how this decision in 1946 is relevant. Its clear you are just pushing a narrative and reaching way, way, way into the past to try and sell it.
Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by rbecker on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @06:37PM
(#23981432)
Way into the past? The rule is still in place today.
Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by ratsmack on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @06:42PM
(#23981463)
I'm totally lost, because I can't see why this rule is a problem. It seems logical to only include a subjects race, only when race is relevant to the article.
Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by rbecker on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @07:05PM
(#23981647)
And if the NYT only deemed race relevant when the perpetrator was Black and victim was White, filling the pages with "Black kills White", and never the reverse, would you see the problem then?
They abandoned any such commitment in 1946, when they introduced the still-active editorial rule [1] that:
race should be cited only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. The race of a victim of a hate crime or the subject of a police search is clearly germane, an essential part of the person’s description. But the race of a person convicted of a crime is not pertinent unless the case has racial overtones;
It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out in which cases race was pertinent. Reuters and AP have similar rules.
[1] New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 2015 Edition, pg. 2183 http://1.droppdf.com/files/bp7ed/the-new-york-times-manual-o...