Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Memphis newspaper apologizes for accurate, yet 'racist' headline

A newspaper in Memphis quickly apologized after protestors complained about its choice of headline in the wake of the deadly police shooting in Dallas.

“Gunman targeted whites,” read the lead story headline in the Commercial Appeal, a member of the USA Today network. The headline was accurate, as Dallas gunman Micah Xavier Johnson explicitly talked about wanted to kill white police officers before he was eliminated via robot bomb.

That didn’t stop protestors from gathering outside the paper’s office in downtown Memphis on Wednesday to express their displeasure, some holding signs that read “Black Lives Matter.”

Commercial Appeal editor Louis Graham quickly apologized after meeting with the protestors, and wrote an editorial titled, “We got it wrong.”

The paper’s president, George Cogswell, said the headline, “although not inaccurate, was very insensitive to the movement and we recognized that quickly.”



Anonymous said...

The headline was correct and accurate. What the paper got wrong was apologizing for stating the truth.


Bird of Paradise said...

Darn bunch of wimpo wash-outs afraid ofa bunch of uncivilized pavment apes they deserve to go bankrupt for this stupid appology

Anonymous said...

All newspapers and news services (AP, Reuters,etc) have what is called a "style book." The book is the "bible" of how articles are to be written, what terms are to be used, ect.

The paper failed to be consistent in their headline writing. As the editor writes:

Several of you have already requested I go back to June 2015 and look at the headline — also stretched across the top of the newspaper — when Dylann Roof was accused of killing nine African-Americans inside their beloved church in Charleston, S.C.

Did it say 'Gunman targets blacks,' I've been asked over and over.

No, it simply said 'Suspect Caught.'

Roof targeted blacks for his killing spree.

So why didn't the paper use the headline of "Gunman Targeted Blacks" on the Roof story?

Why not be consistent and stick to the style book?

I think those are legitimate questions the paper should be asking itself and apparently it is.

The rest of the apology is over the top. The paper has no duty to offend or not offend someone or some group.

So the headline, while accurate, was not consistent with other headlines which should be addressed. The rest of the "apology?" Not so much.

Anonymous said...

Congrats Anon 4:00
A response that was intelligent, considered, and polite.
A rare thing nowadays.

Spurwing Plover the fighting shorebird said...

I wish all those birdcage liners/Parrots toilets would apoligise for trashing the NRA and gun owners

Anonymous said...

Biggest load of crap I have read in a long time.

Gooniebird said...

The Chicken Liver News Buck buck bacaw