The words on the front page stung reader Gloria Gostnell of Portland.
A gang enforcement officer attributed the eruption of downtown shootings to several factors, including one that Tuesday’s story paraphrased this way: “Gentrification in Northeast Portland has pushed young African Americans to bars downtown.”
When Gostnell read the paraphrase, she feared for the reaction to African Americans who will travel downtown. “The damage is from painting everyone with a broad brush,” she says. “The damage is when any African American is downtown in a bar, they’re more likely to be looked at more suspiciously.”
The deadline story described several factors that influenced the shootings, including the spread of gang violence into Portland’s party district. It was comprehensive, filled with details of the most recent shooting, responses from city and business leaders and the history of past shootings. But the statement about young African Americans moving to bars downtown stood out to Gostnell and others. They complained that it didn’t refer to African American gang members, but instead spoke of African Americans as a group.
And they’re right.
Although attributed in the same paragraph to an officer, the statement was far too sweeping. The statement also wasn’t supported in the story with other facts or statements. And it carried the imprimatur of the front page, where stories are considered the most important and should receive scrutiny from several editors.
For journalists, the issue is one of precision, not political correctness.
The Oregonian’s style guidelines emphasize that when considering racial identifiers, “The first question should always be: Is this label necessary or relevant.” It goes on to note, “In all cases, be as specific as possible.”
The guidelines also urge journalists to apply the same standards to all races and ethnic groups. Would the newspaper ever cite as a reason for more violence that another racial group had moved to the party district?
Tom Maurer, who oversees crime coverage, regrets the phrasing of the statement, but not necessarily the intent. He says the story was seeking to explain why violence involving gangs that are predominantly African American has shifted downtown. The closure of night spots frequented by members of those gangs, in part because of gentrification in North and Northeast Portland, is one of the factors in the shift, he says.
“That’s really the way it should have been characterized,” Maurer says. But the statement published on deadline, he says, didn’t reflect the nuance of the situation. As with most stories, the benefit of more time and reporting has unearthed the specifics of the story and has brought the gang involvement and changing dynamics of the party district into focus.
To Maurer, the race of the gang members is relevant only because the newspaper is trying to explain which gang members are involved and why they now are showing up in the downtown club area.
Avoiding racial references, when they’re relevant, precludes important discussions of race and fails to reflect reality. The newspaper’s tendency actually is to neglect to capture and reflect the racial aspects of an issue or development.
At times, race is clearly relevant and appropriate. On the day before the shooting story was published, a front-page profile of Joe Benjamin Sr. appropriately described how the impending sale of his tavern likely will end another key chapter in the history of Portland’s African American social scene. Stories about school test scores correctly address the achievement gap between white students and students of color because that has historically driven school policies and programs.
When it refers to race, the newspaper needs to be clear why it is relevant. Gostnell and others provided an important reminder of the power of only a few words about race, especially on the front page.
“I think it’s careless,” she says. “And it needs to be brought to the attention of everyone at your paper that it . . . can be injurious to African Americans.”
