The Columbian falls down on the job
Last week, I noted that an arson at a restaurant in Vancouver included spray-painted racial graffiti. Anti-Arab slogans, along with other offensive words and symbols, were found at the scene. It's still not clear what exactly happened. As I said in that post, it's possible that someone was trying to obscure some other motive with racist slogans.
But what is The Columbian talking about? Well, managing editor Lou Brancaccio seems most concerned about offending readers rather than getting to the truth of the case.
They could interview the victims. They could talk to state legislators about hate crime laws and human rights commissions. They could do...something.
The Columbian is a joke.
Whether that is by design or by accident is irrelevant. You get a building torched with anti-Arab slogans painted all over it, and the local newspaper worries more about whether someone might be offended over their corn flakes than whether the people behind the arson actually had a racist motive. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but we're most likely to find out when a Portland journalist does their job.
But what is The Columbian talking about? Well, managing editor Lou Brancaccio seems most concerned about offending readers rather than getting to the truth of the case.
On Thursday, we ran a follow-up story on an arson case that involved racial slurs and threats. We knew what was written but did not automatically decide to print it. And we eventually decided -- at this point -- not to print it.Or it could be that Brancaccio is a gutless wonder. There are many ways real journalists could approach the story. They could research the background of the two people arrested.
I was asked about why we didn't print it, and my initial response was pretty simple: We try to keep inappropriate stuff out of the paper. But it really isn't that simple. So I explained further:
"Clearly there are certain things that are said or pictured that we wouldn't put in the newspaper. A graphic swear word. A sexually explicit drawing. Graphic detail on exactly what happened during a rape.
"But there are other things we would consider if it helped readers understand the crime, but it wasn't overly offensive.
"Demeaning a nationality could fall in either of these categories.
"The other factor could be the media would wait until there is an official charge of a hate crime. So, we might not use something in the first story but may come back and use it in the second story."
They could interview the victims. They could talk to state legislators about hate crime laws and human rights commissions. They could do...something.
The Columbian is a joke.
Whether that is by design or by accident is irrelevant. You get a building torched with anti-Arab slogans painted all over it, and the local newspaper worries more about whether someone might be offended over their corn flakes than whether the people behind the arson actually had a racist motive. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but we're most likely to find out when a Portland journalist does their job.
