For corrections to be effective, they'd almost have to be run twice as long as the erroneous story itself -- instead of just a one-off thing. The reasons for media outlets not to trumpet their mistakes are, however, obvious.
knee-jerk cynicism about racial profiling without any justification at all
So how was this about racial profiling? Apparently, the police are still looking for the man in question, who is still alleged to have dragged a woman (his girlfriend) into his van against her will and driven off. All that changed (so far) is that, for reasons that are unclear, it was originally reported to the police as the abduction of a child.
So was the 42-year-old woman actually abducted? By this guy?
Or was the whole thing made up out of thin air?
I see in previews that he did actually abduct her. My question is why doesn't she rate an amber alert? If she were small and slightly built, an eyewitness might easily have mistaken her for a teenager.
My question is why doesn't she rate an amber alert? If she were small and slightly built, an eyewitness might easily have mistaken her for a teenager.
I'm rambling. What I meant was, even though she's 42, shouldn't we all get just as worked up about her abduction as if she were 14? It's not like once you're over 21 you can take care of yourself when abducted.
The eyewitness mistake is a separate issue, obviously.
But since he actually did drag a woman into his van and drive away, I don't see this as a case of racial profiling, just a confused description of an actual victim.
I think I know what you're about here, LB: what passes through your mind when you see a first, breathless story. The degree to which the patterns are so obvious, and so often abused; you know, and you admit knowing, that you're reacting to the pattern regardless of the facts.
Because that's what I take to be your meaning, quibbling about what the actual facts are is beside the point, although perhaps saying your cynicism has been justified isn't the exact way to put it.
I see in previews that he did actually abduct her.
I don't mean to minimize domestic violence here, but the woman was located, free and unhurt, an hour or two later. While the full story isn't being reported (possibly she was dragged into the van, possibly we're talking about a perfectly normal argument that got misinterpreted), the police have a clear interest in making it look as though something criminal happened here, regardless of whether anything did.
At the time of the event police were presumably depending on eywitness descriptions of the event and the people involved. I'm probably as cynical as you about the police and racial profiling, but I don't think this case is a great example. Except that there might be something wrong with the Amber Alert system. Is it really helpful or does it simply give the media a sensational hook when reporting a breaking story? If we are going to have them, how can the police not respond with such an alert to such an eyewitness report?
You know, I don't know that the police, rather than the eyewitnesses, did anything wrong in taking the initial report seriously, but given that the original report was made by people who weren't in a position to distinguish a 42 year old woman from a 14 year old girl, they can't have been particularly well situated to see what was going on.
I think the circumstantial evidence that this incident was received with a certain amount of credulity by the police and the media related to the race and perceived scariness of the alleged abductor is pretty good.
The media shouldn't publish the pictures or names of suspects.
The media shouldn't publish the pictures or names of suspects.
10 -- Not publishing pictures would severely hamper vigilantism, which now remains perhaps America's last, best hope.
The episode is clouded by all the difficulties of domestic violence reporting. I think the Big Scary Guy in Dredlocks was undoubtedly a factor in the news reporting. But as for the eyewitnesses, isn't this kind of mistake practically routine? A small woman, especially small-looking next to the BSGD, dressed in young-looking clothes like a tanktop (not unlikely in the middle of summer) could easily be misperceived as a young girl, especially if you hadn't noticed her before the struggle (assuming there actually was one). One thing is sure, if she had turned up dead or injured, and the police had ignored or downplayed the report, they'd have been in trouble.
But I'm thinking profiling is an issue for the witnesses and the press. How would all this have played out if the couple were white?
10--what would we look at while standing in line at the post office?
How would all this have played out if the couple were white?
Onlookers would have assumed they were husband and wife, or father and daughter, and that there was no problem beyond a squabble or "tough love" or something.
So actually, a possible episode of domestic violence is treated for once with the seriousness it deserves, because possibly racist witnesses saw it as random street crime, newsworthy because it seemed to involve a young girl.
It's some sort of variation on the Missing White Woman syndrome. Which victims are worthy of attention?
But I'm thinking profiling is an issue for the witnesses and the press. How would all this have played out if the couple were white?
Yup. I'm not putting up a name or a direct link, because the guy doesn't need more publicity, but google for some more stories until you find his picture, and then tell me that that guy isn't going to get an undeserved hard time in any context where you could be inappropriately paranoid.
Which I took to be your point: Here's this again, true or not, and so very often in the past, not true. "Wilding," etc. Yes, it's a problem for the "whitenesses," but the awareness you're modeling is the only response I can think of.
15: I just had this conversation -- a problem with discussing this sort of racism is that it's hard to do with fervor because you end up defending possible malfactors.
I think of it as the Beau problem: the brother of a woman I knew at MIT was a major pot dealer on campus. He was a professional, not just reselling odds and ends from personal use, who was paying tuition with the money. Lovely guy, very pleasant, and never had a run in with the cops, nor expected to. On the other hand, a black kid from Bed Stuy who dealt the same quantity of pot would probably end up in prison.
The question is, what am I outraged about? I'm not outraged that Beau isn't a convicted felon - I liked him, and don't wish him ill. But I have a difficult time getting all outraged about racism when someone who is a law-breaker gets arrested and convicted: if we leave aside for the moment the wisdom of the drug-war generally, then the guy from Bed Stuy belongs in jail.
Still, the treatment of the two equivalent offenders is wildly different by race, and that's a problem, no matter how hard it is to pinpoint where exactly to get outraged.
This guy may have been doing something bad -- it's possible that the witnesses weren't totally off base, and that he was actually placing the woman under duress. But I'm damn sure that a white guy doing the same thing, under similar circumstances, wouldn't have been plastered over the eleven o'clock news.
After reading this story the other day, my new motto is: "No matter how paranoid you may think you are, you'll never be as paranoid as the people running the conspiracy."
I didn't see a picture, but the description is enough to suggest that you are correct. If he hadn't been a giant in dreds, he wouldn't have been an exciting 11:00 news story. For a white guy to get equivalent attention he would have had to shoot his (pregnant) wife to death.
Race and class do isolate the privileged from the law. It's completely unfair that the MIT student and the Bed/Stuy kid meet such unequal treatment.
Also irritating in this case is the mythic thinking that is such and obvious undercurrent in the news story: archetypal bogeyman and perfectly innocent victim