When Race Plays a Role

One thing that I found particularly interesting about the way the media covered the Va. Tech shootings is how quickly reporters jumped on the fact the shooter was "Asian." In several of the stories I saw online, it was explicitly stated that the shooter had been identified as an "Asian." This really confused me. I thought a lot about our conversations in class and then also Professor McGuire's other assigned readings for my Media Ethics course. Essentially, I came to the conclusion that this story was not one in which race was important, and furthermore, a descriptor such as "Asian" really tells us very little about the gunman. "Asian" can mean several things, just as "Caucasian" or "Hispanic" can. Essentially the term does nothing to clarify the situation for the reader. Also, since the shooter had committed suicide, it can't be argued the description was used to warn people. Even then there's an argument that the term is to vague to be of any real help.

With all of this in mind, it came as very little surprise to me that the Asian American Journalists Association is urging people to avoid using the racial identifier. Today, we know his identity, so it's even less essential. We have pictures, we have a name, let's use a description that doesn't involve his race. A memo (linked above) released by the association says:

"As coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting continues to unfold, AAJA urges all media to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason. There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people."

There are others who disagree, obviously. The think his race should be mentioned. Clearly, I disagree, but I can see both points of view.