We noted, just three weeks ago, that the City of Brotherly Love’s terrible homicide rate had topped the entire year’s total for 2013 and 2014:
According to the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page, as of the end of Tuesday, June 15th, the city hit what could wryly be called a milestone, it’s 250th murder. The math is pretty bad: 250 homicides ÷ 166 days = 1.506 per day, × 365 = 549.70 murders for the year. The evil, reich-wing Donald Trump has been out of office for just five days short of five months now, the very liberal, opposed to mass incarceration District Attorney Larry Krasner has been renominated, the pandemic restrictions have (mostly) been lifted, and Philly’s murder rate is increasing.Well, as Mickey East, formerly a political science professor at the University of Kentucky used to say, to encourage students to get their work done, tempus is fugiting, and now, three weeks later, the Philadelphia Police Department is reporting 285 homicides as of 11:59 PM on Monday, July 5th. 285 homicides ÷ 186 days = 1.532 per day, putting the city on schedule for 559.27 for the year. Those 285 homicides now top the year’s totals for 2015 and 2016, 280 and 277 homicides, respectively. At least as of 5:15 PM, The Philadelphia Inquirer had taken no notice of that fact, at least on its website’s main page.
In just 20 days, the murder rate has increased enough to add 9 or 10 more dead bodies on Philly’s mean streets, but, as already noted, The Philadelphia Inquirer, “an anti-racist news organization” according to publisher Elizabeth Hughes, doesn’t care unless one of those killed was an ‘innocent,’ or a ‘somebody,‘ or a cute little white girl.
What did Miss Hughes say the Inquirer would do to make itself into that “anti-racist news organization” she wanted it to be?
- A month after the (Buildings Matter, Too) headline was published, the newsroom began a comprehensive process to examine nearly every facet of what our journalists do. Almost 80 staffers, more than a third of the newsroom, have convened every week since. In working groups, they discuss complex issues and make recommendations that are then considered by a steering committee made up of managers and frontline staffers. To date, all have been adopted.
- Producing an antiracism workflow guide for the newsroom that provides specific questions that reporters and editors should ask themselves at various stages of producing our journalism.
- Establishing a Community News Desk to address long-standing shortcomings in how our journalism portrays Philadelphia communities, which have often been stigmatized by coverage that over-emphasizes crime.
- Creating an internal forum for journalists to seek guidance on potentially sensitive content and to ensure that antiracism is central to the journalism.
- Commissioning an independent audit of our journalism that resulted in a critical assessment. Many of the recommendations are being addressed, and a process for tracking progress is being developed.
- Training our staff and managers on how to recognize and avoid cultural bias.
- Examining our crime and criminal justice coverage with Free Press, a nonprofit focused on racial justice in media.
Here’s a sampling of what has been done or is close to being launched:
And the result of all of that? Other than to criticize “gun violence,” a term which makes it sound as though inanimate firearms somehow levitate and shoot people all by themselves, the Inquirer almost never personalizes the actual shooters, never blames the people who pick up the guns and start firing.[1]A notable exception to that would be Keith Gibbson, but he is accused of killing an ‘innocent,’ Christine Lugo. Even saying that, the stories stopped after just two articles. In their great desire not to be racist, the Inquirer has become the racists they decry, examining everything through the prism of race, and deciding what to print, and not to print, based on its effects on race. That is, quite literally, discriminating on the basis of race! In “examin(ing) nearly every facet of what (their) journalists do,” they have become not journalists, but journolists![2]The spelling ‘journolist’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term … Continue reading
As I previously noted, I ran across a photo of the masthead of The Philadelphia Inquirer from February 25, 1953, and noticed the ‘taglines’ that it used: “Public Ledger” and “An Independent Newspaper for All the People”. By Public ledger, the Inquirer was setting itself up as Philadelphia’s newspaper of record, which Wikipedia defines as “a major newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative.” That Wikipedia article named four newspapers of record for the United States: The New York Times (Founded 1851), The Washington Post (1877), The Los Angeles Times (1881) and The Wall Street Journal (1889). First printed on Monday, June 1, 1829, the then Pennsylvania Inquirer is older than any of them. “An editorial in the first issue of The Pennsylvania Inquirer promised that the paper would be devoted to the right of a minority to voice their opinion and ‘the maintenance of the rights and liberties of the people, equally against the abuses as the usurpation of power.’”
The newspaper, by its publisher’s own admission, no longer cares about anything as radical as the ‘public’s right to know,’ because knowing the truth, the unvarnished truth, might perpetuate stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.[3]That quote is specifically from the Sacramento Bee, and forms the basis of the McClatchy Mugshot Policy, but it is clearly a reflection of what the Inquirer does as well. But, at least the publisher has admitted what she wants to do; I, for one, will continue to point that out.
References
| ↑1 | A notable exception to that would be Keith Gibbson, but he is accused of killing an ‘innocent,’ Christine Lugo. Even saying that, the stories stopped after just two articles. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | The spelling ‘journolist’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias. |
| ↑3 | That quote is specifically from the Sacramento Bee, and forms the basis of the McClatchy Mugshot Policy, but it is clearly a reflection of what the Inquirer does as well. |
