A Chicago judge’s husband and mother are shot to death. The judge had angered white supremacist groups in the past, raising suspicions of a racist connection to the murders.
A troubled young man known to praise Hitler’s diatribes on racial purity goes on a shooting rampage, killing 10 people in Minnesota.
A reporter discovers an Internet posting indicating a neo-Nazi group will relocate to the Midwest.
The news has been full of opportunities lately to report and misreport the activities of hate groups. Word of a Neo Nazi, or skinhead, in your community’s midst can be a titillating fragment of news for journalists.
Covering the acts and threats of hate groups, or people who claim membership in such groups, can be a slippery slope for journalists. Give the group undue coverage and you risk becoming their recruitment tool, unnecessarily fanning reader fears.
Choose to ignore them and reporters risk offending readers who deserve to know if such groups are operating in their midst.
There are no easy answers, no hard and fast rules. Each story has to be reviewed and studied. What is news in one community may not be deemed worthy of coverage in another.
But one thing is always clear: Strong source development prior to news breaking will help reporters and editors weigh the merits of such tips. And reporters and editors who understand how supremacist groups operate will have the groundwork for good journalism later.
Finally, solid reporting that gives context to the group, its beliefs, and possible activities will broaden coverage away from sensationalism.
Take the case of the neo-Nazis who recently announced they were moving to Kansas City, Kan. The story broke when Kansas City Star reporter Judy Thomas was researching a piece for the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Thomas was the perfect reporter for the story. Few, if any, reporters nationally could match her wide network of sources and contacts with members of known hate groups. Thomas found a reference on an Aryan Nation website saying that a leader of the group was moving its national headquarters to the Kansas City area.
Thomas verified with leaders of the Aryan group that their national director, Charles John Juba, had recently moved to the Kansas City metropolitan area with the goal of finding new members.
The story ran on A-1, above the fold with the bold headline: “Neo-Nazi setting up base in KCK; Group has a violent, racist history.” Many in the newsroom, including this writer and Thomas, questioned the high play of the story.
Does one man’s relocation, a man who did not have a record of violence, truly mean that the Aryan national headquarters have arrived in town? But when events played out, the editors who supported the front-page placement gained a strong argument for their decision.
The publicity, and subsequent community outcry, influenced the man’s decision to quit the Aryan group. It is unknown if he indeed has left the Kansas City area. And the dizzying back and forth nature of the coverage was confusing to some readers.
First, the Star reported the group’s decision to locate to the area. The next day, an article reported Juba was resigning as national director. The third day, the Star reported Juba was quitting the organization.
The example shows how a newspaper can find itself in the awkward position of creating news it then has to cover. After the front-page story ran, community members were understandably alarmed.
Television then picked up the story, adding more fuel to people’s fears with little context.
Thomas’ broader story, assessing the state of organized hate groups, offered the information many readers needed. It highlighted this reality: “10 years later, that movement — which included everything from the patriot and militia groups to the more violent white supremacists and neo-Nazis — is rudderless and in disarray, experts say.”
What Thomas found is that while the well-organized hate groups of the past have splintered, and many have dissolved, in their place are “lone wolf” operators who also can be very violent.
In Kansas City, community reaction to news about the Aryan group is still developing. One man is organizing a meeting in April to determine, “What is there about our community that made people think Nazism would be welcome?”
Good reporting can tell this man that it may be less hate-based than he believes. Juba’s wife has family ties to the area. Thomas believes a good part of the decision to locate near Kansas City was her desire to be near family.
A few last tips:
Do not wait until an incident occurs to develop good sources. Find out who in your community might keep an eye on hate groups. Be wary of diversity experts as sources. They may be good sources to discuss how an attack might affect a racial or ethnic group. But such sources rarely actively track the movements of hate groups.
Local law enforcement, the FBI and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League are good places to start.
Take care in giving credit to an organized supremacist group for any incident. For example, racist flyers might be passed out in a neighborhood signed “KKK.” But the act might have been done by a troubled teenager looking for attention.
However, coverage of the impact of a racial taunt or incident like a flyer is necessary. Often, it does not matter if an organized group is behind the act. A threat or act can be frightening regardless of the source.
The opposite also can be true. Note if there is a disparity in reaction to an incident by different racial groups. For instance, in 2001, someone sent racist letters to 14 black churches in the Kansas City area.
The white community, largely led by white ministers, were outraged and wanted to organize rallies.
Several black ministers, however, said such letters were not uncommon. They were much more concerned about racism that affected people’s ability to find employment or gain an education. As one black minister calmly commented, such letters are “why I keep a shredder by my desk.”
