John Crouch said it was “appalling” that police descriptions of two men who beat and robbed an Edina couple were not published in the May 24 story of the crime.
The police release said they were black males, “late 20s to early 30s, slim, one 5’9″ and one 6′ to 6’2″, dreadlocks.”
The newspaper’s policy on using descriptions says:
“We wouldn’t run the following because it doesn’t have enough defining characteristics to be useful: black male, age 18-20, medium build, 5 foot 10 to 6 foot 2.
“We would run the following: black male, age 18-20, 180-200 pounds, 5 foot 10 to 6 foot 2, light complexion, close-cropped hair.”
Two men were charged June 1 with the crime. The story said the defendants are aged 27 and 42, and booking photographs showed neither with dreadlocks.
Supervisor Beth Podtburg said, “We compared the police description to our policy, which is designed to avoid targeting large classes of people. Although the police description had some distinguishing characteristics, it wasn’t specific enough. The descriptions needed narrower age ranges or details about skin tone, scars or clothing.”
Comment: The police description met the newspaper’s bare-bones criteria. No surprise that it was invalidated by the ages of those apprehended. It’s obvious the criteria need to be toughened.
Who is elderly?
The word “elderly” in the headline over the Edina story, “Masked intruders beat, rob elderly couple in Edina,” was challenged by Carole Epstein and others who said reporting their ages would have been sufficient. The story said both victims were 67.
Managing editor Pam Fine said: “The reader makes a good point, one that I have been on a bandwagon about for some time. I admit the older I get, the younger those ‘elderly’ folks look to me. As our stylebook says, we should use the word ‘carefully and sparingly.’”
The newsroom policy adds, “It carries for many readers a connotation of frailty. It is appropriate in generic phrases that do not refer to specific individuals: concern for the elderly, housing for the elderly, etc. … In most cases, however, let the age of the person or persons involved carry the message.”
Copy editor Jeff McMillan, who wrote the headline, said, “I agree that the word should be used judiciously.
“However, the Edina police chief was quoted saying, ‘It was a vicious attack on an elderly couple.’
“So, it seems that a main reason the story was worthy of coverage was that a couple was beaten whom the police perceived to be frail or vulnerable. Citing their ages in the headline wouldn’t have necessarily conveyed that perception of frailty. And certainly, I wouldn’t have used the word at all had the police not described the couple as such.”
Comment: That the brutal beating occurred in an uppercrust neighborhood where such crime is rare was the news nugget, not that the victims were elderly. The police chief’s statement was newsworthy because of his role, but not headline fodder.
‘Chubby’
A story on the June 1 Metro/State cover began, “Shackled and handcuffed, a chubby 14-year-old boy from rural Cass Lake was led to juvenile court Thursday and charged with murdering his father and attempting to murder the foster parents of his girlfriend.”
Chubby? No relevance, said several callers.
Shawn Fury’s e-mail said: “Why does it matter what his physical attributes are when he’s charged with murder?”
Karen Cyson, St. Cloud, called: “There are a lot of words — cherubic, innocent — he could have used that would have been better.”
Rick Brausen wrote: “Did ‘chubby’ add to the story, or to the pain of being an angry unhappy teen?”
Reporter Pat Doyle responded: “This is a very young teen charged with very heinous crimes. It begs the question: What does he look like? And his appearance belies the allegations against him. He’s baby-faced, pudgy, soft-looking. It’s a paradox.”
Top editors said the word was inappropriate.
Comment: If only Doyle had described the boy as “baby-faced” or “soft-looking.” Even better, “cherubic.” “Chubby” can apply to individuals of all ages, and doesn’t smack of guilt or innocence.
