Poynter Online
Go


Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
Most Recent Articles
Most E-mailed
Recent Comments
Recent Tags
Community Activity

Poynter Training
Poynter Seminars
Small, in-person training experiences.
News University
Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists.
Webinars
Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more.
All Webinars

Poynter Forums

View Forum Post

Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 12/9/2006 2:49:55 PM
Title: Undercovered hate crime
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
 
From DAVID MILLS: We have in Los Angeles an ongoing case study of what happens when a major American newspaper is confronted with an event outside of its politically correct comfort zone. The LAT isn't doing itself proud.

On Halloween night, in an upscale neighborhood of Long Beach called Bixby Knolls, three young white women were surrounded and severely beaten by about 30 black youths, who allegedly punctuated their assault with comments like "We hate white people, f--- whites." One of the victims suffered multiple facial fractures; reportedly she was struck with a skateboard. Ten black kids, ages 12 to 17, are currently on trial for felony assault. Eight of them are charged with a hate-crime enhancement. Nine of them are girls.

The LA Times made no mention of the mob attack until November 7, several days after the Long Beach Press-Telegram had published a chilling account of the beatings based on an interview with the victims. The Times might have ignored the incident entirely if the Press-Telegram weren't so aggressively covering it.

You don't have to be a card-carrying Klansman to point out that the LA Times surely would be treating this story differently if three black women had been attacked by 30 white teenagers hurling words like "F--- black people." Columnists and editorial writers would be rending their garments, agonizing over the meaning of such a brutal crime. Instead, the Times seems to have made an institutional decision that the Halloween attack is barely newsworthy, even though the city of Long Beach has been shaken by this case for more than a month.

Yes, the Times is covering the hate-crime trial. But until Friday morning, all of its trial stories have run inside the local-news section, mostly on page 3 (amid articles on the Disney Co.'s property taxes and a ban on dirty dancing at a local high school). To date, there hasn't been a story about how the Bixby Knolls neighborhood has been affected by the crime, or about how black and white teenagers in Long Beach are reacting to the case... the kinds of pieces that seem like no-brainers if the Times considered this a significant news story.

The Halloween mob assault appears to be the worst instance of black-on-white violence in Southern California since Reginald Denny took a cinder block to the head. Why is the LA Times covering it so grudgingly? The only reference to the beatings on the op-ed page came last Sunday, when Michael McGough, a senior editorial writer, wrote of this case: "I wouldn't dare to prejudge [it] even if the facts weren't so murky." He then fretted that an "unintended consequence" of hate-crime laws is that "such laws could end up punishing blacks who commit violence against whites — which is a far cry from the historical experience that inspired hate-crime statutes."

Say what? I didn't realize that hate-crime laws were supposed to punish only white people. Presented with a shocking instance of black-on-white violence, the Times thinks the only larger issue worth discussing is whether hate-crime legislation is wrongheaded?

The first four trial stories by reporter Joe Mozingo included mention that the case has drawn "national attention." This seems to be untrue. When Mozingo first mentioned this, the AP had just started covering the trial. But as far as I can tell, the only major newspapers to pick up the AP accounts were the San Francisco Chronicle and the Mercury News. There's been no reference to the Long Beach beatings on cable news channels, for example. Where was this "national attention"? To me, it sounded like the Times trying to justify its own coverage, as if it was embarrassed to be reporting on the trial at all. "The only reason we're writing about it every day is because it's receiving national attention." Implying that the merits of the story wouldn't demand even meager coverage.

Mozingo has now dropped the "national attention" boilerplate, but may have adopted another. In a story on the cover of the local-news section, Mozingo reports: "Talk radio hosts have drummed up a steady stream of outrage over the incident and its aftermath." Which might also be untrue. So far as I know, only one local talk-radio host has regularly commented on the case. And it's hard to tell what he's "drumming up" because he hasn't invited any calls from listeners on the subject. Where is this "steady stream of outrage"?

In any event, what does talk-radio reaction have to do with the price of eggs? Is the Times implying that anyone who's outraged by a black-on-white mob attack is only being stirred up by talk radio? Or is the Times trying to justify its own minification of the Long Beach attack by saying, "Hey, the only people making a big deal about this thing are some rabble-rousing right-wing talk-show hosts? We, the Los Angeles Times, are giving it the slight attention it deserves"? [Permalink]


View Complete Forum Topic

Username
Password
New User? Signup Now
Poynter Careers
More media jobs