In a new twist on an old theme, it seems that reasonable people also can agree, as in the African-American woman and white male reader who voiced the same complaint about the Sept. 27 article, “Police vow to calm unruly CityPlace teens.”
“The story on the CityPlace fracas was terribly racist,” Harvey Miller called to say of the article, whose lead-in reported that “patrols will increase after arrests of more than 40 teens, mostly blacks, in two weeks” at the upscale redevelopment project in downtown West Palm Beach. “I cannot believe the story that I read today,” said an “outraged” and “astounded” Ketly Blaise. “The overriding theme is that all of these teenagers are black,” said Ms. Blaise in her phone message, “and I’m trying to remember with the stories about Clematis Street and all the commotion that was going on if there was ever a focus that most of that unrest was done by white kids.
“So we’re going to target this story against black teenagers so we can create more divisiveness at a very sensitive time in our nation’s history? . . . Instead of it just being teenagers, we have to talk about their color?” Isn’t the very fact of being teenagers, she suggested, “synonymous with a lot of times them being unruly just because they’re teenagers? The story should be about the teenagers being unruly, period. Adding their color only inflames already heightened nerves.”
It should have been conveyed more clearly to readers that as the staff was doing its due diligence, the arrest records made it obvious that while race wasn’t the issue, it clearly was an element of the story. As the article and subsequent ones reported, police records revealed that most of the kids who were arrested live in the predominantly African-American neighborhood near the entertainment hub. That point wasn’t made strongly enough nor high up enough in the story to support the lead-in – probably out of deference to sensitivities on race.
Yet the complaints seem to be blaming the messenger for reporting that the kids whom the police patrols would be targeting were mostly blacks. My sense is that Managing Editor John Bartosek has it right in saying that if you want to understand the problem and understand how it is being handled, you must address race.
“In late 1996,” said Mr. Bartosek, “when rowdy teens were a concern on Clematis Street and the city began consideration of a curfew, The Post reported that the majority of the young people being arrested there were white and from outside the city. In this case, we reported that most of those arrested are black and from a neighborhood near CityPlace.
“The story also reported that CityPlace is a magnet for many teens – black, white and Hispanic – and that 90 percent of those arrested are black. We reported the police and City Place managers’ statements that blacks are not targeted. I think knowing those facts is helpful for readers who want to understand the concerns and how they are being addressed.”
Mr. Miller said it would be good “if CityPlace and all the other people who live in the area got together and raised enough money to build a playground for these children and other facilities, maybe an indoor game center of some sort.” I agree with his suggestion and with his point that the article’s accompanying photo, of unidentified youths at CityPlace taken from a police videotape, randomly implicated young black children as troublemakers.
I disagree, however, when Mr. Miller says with regard to the story’s race element: “It would have been better if they had just mentioned that these people came from around the area.” A follow-up article on Monday, in contrast, seemed to bend over backward, omitting references to race that in some cases would have added good nuance to the numerous anecdotes that were reported. Though more often not, race sometimes is a significant detail. These readers offer a reminder that the paper must stay alert in balancing the distinction.
