Los Angeles detectives assigned to the hit-and-run homicide of a Guatemalan-American construction worker on March 29, 2009: 1
Sentences in the April 25th edition of the Washington Post reporting on a colonoscopy of a panda in that city's zoo: 20
Sentences in the April 25th edition of the Washington Post reporting on the murder of a black teenager: 2
Yeah, I got nothin'. (h/t to News of the Weird, LA Times, Washington Post, and of course Harper's)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:14 pm (UTC)That's how you know.
Nope, totally missed that memo
Date: 2009-08-31 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 12:44 am (UTC)In the H+R cases, how much information did the cops have to go on in either case? Did they assign more/fewer detectives to one than another because they had better/worse leads?
Not saying racism isn't at play (this is LA, after all), just looking for more data.
Also, on the colonoscopy v. murder, what was the social status of the kid? Was he well known to authorities, and therefore, less newsworthy? (Notice that newspapers tend not to highlight scumbags falling victim to their own brand of natural selection. And rightly so.)
I think you're missing the point
Date: 2009-09-01 11:15 am (UTC)Re: I think you're missing the point
Date: 2009-09-01 02:10 pm (UTC)Most often, after a little more reading, I tend to answer "yes", and also, I notice the story is lighter on details than if the story was about an innocent victim. And frankly, this difference in coverage sits fine with me: I have far less concern for the history of a kid who consciously decided to screw up his life.
Now, if the stories are about innocent victims, and one has more details than the other, then yes, there's something to be said about that disparity.
To the panda story, I'm also fine knowing much more about them: a recent story mentioned that some experts predict they'll be extinct within our lifetimes. Human beings have no such burden of survival.