Is this necessary, Associated Press?

quote:

---

Always looking to sensationalize.

---

Leads to more $$$$$

Can't be about $$$$. Has to be just in case we forgot that he was white.

It's a little more insulting that they seem to think there are people that don't know which one was white, at this point.

I would overlook it if they would have had the balls to put "The white police officer who killed black Michael Brown", though.

quote:

---

the race of certain parties

---

Why only single out the race of one party then?

It just doesn't seem needed in this instance.

The more the media can fuel the fire, the more advertising revenue they can get out of it so keeping it about race will ensure they keep it alive.

In most news stories I encounter, they will only identify the suspect if he/she is white. And they do this systematically. But otherwise (in BR) you get height, weight, and clothing (really, clothes? like they didn't change?!)

And I read plenty of news stories where a suspect is identified as African American. I think you just notice it more when the suspect is identified as white or Caucasian.

quote:

---

people complain about the media

---

I understand what you are saying... But the OP's point is to highlight the media's attempt to "feed the fire". Many places want to attribute this to race or police brutality. But all credible evidence has shown that this had nothing to do with race and this officer acted lawfully. But that doesn't sell papers or generate clicks. White vs. Black does, especially with this story.

While it isn't necessary, this story is only relevant b/c the officer was "white".

quote:

---

But facts*

---

Watch the news tonight... when they say police officers are looking for your help to find a robbery suspect or something, they will have height, weight, what they were wearing and a sketch. .... but I promise you won't hear the words "black male" even if it clearly was.