Oh no, who did you kidknap now BP?
I think it depeneds on the nature of the crime. Regular crimes are not enough to gain the attention of the masses. Crimes like the one committed against James Byrd are. Additionally, I think a lot of it has to do with issue cycles. If blacks in media are particularly hot at any given time, racially related stories will increase, both negative and positive. Same goes for any other demographic. The early/mid 90's were full of national stories about black tragedies. The widening racial chasm at the time was partly responsible for this, at least in my rudimentary analysis.
Part of this has to do with the fact that many of the media decision-makers are white men who somehow relate to these women as being their wives, daughters or sisters.It is simply the reality that white media executives, based on their view of the world, react differently to the cases of whites than minorities.
So as a member of the (gasp) media, I'll offer my perspective on this. I think a lot of this has to do with economics. I am a print journalist, a crime and courts reporter. Victims of crime in poor communities do not get same "respect" as victims of crime in rich communities. I know I have heard this in so many words from newspaper editors, who believe their target readers are well-to-do homeowners who only care about things that happen near their manicured lawns. If readers -- aka advertisers' target audience -- don't care about who gets killed or raped in the "bad" areas, then many decision-makers in the media don't care either.It's not that reporters necessarily shy away from these stories, but they'll get discouraged when their story ends up on some tiny inside page that no one reads.
Page created in 0.219 seconds with 18 queries.