Zimbabwe inflation rate now 136%
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
Gato_Solo,
Sorry, I can't agree in all cases that race should be left out. I read several articles in the local paper here, and they speak of attacks on one group of people being committed on another racial group, but they didn't make mention of which race was the victim, and which was the attackers (sorry, in my first post, I forgot to mention the articles also said the attacks were racially motivated). I don't know, I think this is trying to be too "politically correct," at least in my opinion. I have read several such articles like that since I move here. My guess would be that they are whites attacking blacks, based purely on demographics (this state is only 6% black) but then, what if my assumption was wrong. The goal of any news article is to report the news, what happened, not to be politically correct to try to keep facts from the article out of a sense of duty not to offend. What if my assumption is wrong. What if I or some other reader has a concern to prevent what has happened from happening again. how does one know what actions to take if the WHOLE STORY is not reported.
Sorry, I must disagree in this case. However, I must also concede that it could have been better presented to show the relevence of stating the race of the individuals involved. If race is truly irrelevent, then I agree, it shouldn't be included. In this case, I think it was relevent, and also in some of the cases I have read here in our local newspaper, where the offending race, and the race with which the crime was commited against was omitted. I only say that in this case, because these articles specifically state that the crimes were RACIALLY MOTIVATED. Yet they make no mention even of which races were involved, let alone which group was attacking whom for racially motivated reasons. Now, barring that last fact, you are correct, it shouldn't be an issue, and isn't necessary to state such things.
Now I think its safe to say, in this state, my original assumption was correct, that it was whites attacking blacks, solely because they are black but how would you know, and how can I arrive at that conclusion. I can only guess!!!
Sorry, I can't agree in all cases that race should be left out. I read several articles in the local paper here, and they speak of attacks on one group of people being committed on another racial group, but they didn't make mention of which race was the victim, and which was the attackers (sorry, in my first post, I forgot to mention the articles also said the attacks were racially motivated). I don't know, I think this is trying to be too "politically correct," at least in my opinion. I have read several such articles like that since I move here. My guess would be that they are whites attacking blacks, based purely on demographics (this state is only 6% black) but then, what if my assumption was wrong. The goal of any news article is to report the news, what happened, not to be politically correct to try to keep facts from the article out of a sense of duty not to offend. What if my assumption is wrong. What if I or some other reader has a concern to prevent what has happened from happening again. how does one know what actions to take if the WHOLE STORY is not reported.
Sorry, I must disagree in this case. However, I must also concede that it could have been better presented to show the relevence of stating the race of the individuals involved. If race is truly irrelevent, then I agree, it shouldn't be included. In this case, I think it was relevent, and also in some of the cases I have read here in our local newspaper, where the offending race, and the race with which the crime was commited against was omitted. I only say that in this case, because these articles specifically state that the crimes were RACIALLY MOTIVATED. Yet they make no mention even of which races were involved, let alone which group was attacking whom for racially motivated reasons. Now, barring that last fact, you are correct, it shouldn't be an issue, and isn't necessary to state such things.
Now I think its safe to say, in this state, my original assumption was correct, that it was whites attacking blacks, solely because they are black but how would you know, and how can I arrive at that conclusion. I can only guess!!!
oh, one more thing, I didn't read much on this, and I'm making the assumption that what is stated in this thread, that it was indeed racially motivated is true. Now, if this isn't true, then like I said above, race is irrelevent. ONLY when there is a racially motivated action should it NECESSARILY be included.
I'm actually only commenting because of the articles I read here. I found it to be overly "politically correct" to the point of making the reported "news" unuseful, and in fact, not news at all!!! It left far too much to the imagination to be considered good reporting (again, I'm not speaking of this case, but rather the case her where it was stated that it was indeed "racially motivated."
I'm actually only commenting because of the articles I read here. I found it to be overly "politically correct" to the point of making the reported "news" unuseful, and in fact, not news at all!!! It left far too much to the imagination to be considered good reporting (again, I'm not speaking of this case, but rather the case her where it was stated that it was indeed "racially motivated."