"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's directly relevant to the point (by a Western journalist) about Japan's "status as a democratic nation" which can presumably be turned right back on us.

That’s because the ethnicity of a criminal is usually not a relevant detail. It is not similar to the Japanese media hiding the motive of the assassination.

> That’s because the ethnicity of a criminal is usually not a relevant detail.

That’s a big assumption rooted in a moral framework rather than in objective science.

In a news report about an individual crime?

Lets say a hate crime was committed against Jews. Do you assume it was a Nazi, or an Islamist? This pops up all the time in Europe, usually it is Islamists but sometimes it is Nazis, and that makes a huge difference when interpreting what the crime means.

Or for this case, lets say the perpetrator was of Chinese origin instead of Japanese. Do you think that wouldn't be relevant at all?

If the person was Chinese yes that would be an important consideration wrt the motive

> That’s because the ethnicity of a criminal is usually not a relevant detail.

Come on, don't be coy. There are many things which aren't relevant like where the criminal is from or how old he is.

The reason they hide the ethnicity is because it helps racists to profile.

The problem is that they go too far the other way, like labeling Kyle Rittenhouse, not just white, but a white supremacist without any evidence.

Age and location are necessary to avoid confusion based on name, and are much more effective at doing so than race which has the added problem of fueling racism.

Your thinly veiled accusation of racism notwithstanding, I don’t think there’s anything morally deplorable in thinking the media should help the public build a more statistically representative model of the world we live in, regardless of the cultural background of criminals. As an example, I don’t think the demographic of young white guys fare too well in the mass shooter statistic, but omitting this reality isn’t of public benefit.

You can certainly have your opinions. They just aren't very relevant when the entire premise of this discussion is false. This clearly isn't being reported by a US or UK mainstream publication but what looks like a one man operation in Japan. This is very much the problem with hijacking discussion. Not only is there little to no context but the participants get so excited that they can't fact check even the two lines of justification.

> This clearly isn't being reported by a US or UK mainstream publication but what looks like a one man operation in Japan.

Oddly enough, I had LBC London News on (UK DAB Radio) earlier and they accurately reported the story - (Precis) "Man upset at Church donation killed Abe over believed links to said Church" - remarkably good news journalism for quite a niche radio station.

The media doesn't deal in statistically representative samples. It highlights notable events of the day and therefore by definition only deals with the extremes.

Personally I think it's a huge red flag when people talk about "criminals" as a noun. There is no Homo criminalis distinct from Homo sapiens. Most people should not be branded as such a category for the rest of their lives. Many people are also falsely accused, and the system in the United States is especially bad at that.

That's a linguistic battle that's hard to win. Calling someone a "criminal" or a "magician" is equivalent from a language standpoint -- both are labels referring to a subset of people.

Trying to be more precise to make a relevant point is more work and comes across as pedantic and annoying, like "birthing people". You can argue that it's more correct and better in some sense, but logic doesn't always win when it comes to language.

How is any of this relevant when they will usually publish a photo of the accused?

Hmm, if you meet a young black man, it’s more likely you will be shot, but if you meet a young white man, it’s more likely a lot of people will get shot.

(As a liberal black man)

It’s sadly anyone but Arabs ( in this post 9-11 America).

You all know the shooters are white/black/asian (typically through social medial or other outside channels) in America, but it’s not spoken.

Maybe he wants everyone to be treated equally and not be treated differently based on their race in the news. I know it’s shocking concept to most people.

Often it's about being Muslim. People understandably do want to know that because it shows something about what else people with similar beliefs might do.

It’s a German guy who is saying the press should make sure to report the race of the perpetrator/suspect even when not directly relevant to the crime, so that the public can draw inferences on which ethnic groups are most likely to commit crimes. A bit on the nose.

> I wonder why that is.

Because they have a preference for objectivity over being diplomatic?

Actually, it's a problem on both sides of the media, though I admit I was interested to see if biases would be revealed in any responses...

The comment could also be read to mean that race is irrelevant to the crimes and shouldn't usually be reported.

As it stands, the media is a bit selective in reporting the race of suspects, to the point of misinforming readers.