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.