Beg to differ. Persons? "Racist". Words? "Racial". Actions? "Racially motivated". Cases may involve "racial bias" (as per police who referred this one to the DA).
And words here are 2nd/3rd/4th-hand (not always clear in reportage) - EXCEPT that cops heard her threaten to kill the whole family. ...
My preference is for investigators and reporters to render observational description, while advocates are freer to speculate, impute motivation and intent, and render social/moral/criminal judgment.
All that said, she bailed out too easily, yes?
Journalists should be accurate, relevant, and sure, what the hell, concise. Borrowing from Grice. Here they’re parroting the police report, which as Stephen says is justifiable as a source but insufficient for communication.
Journo's, cops - say what you know, or less, never more.
Major coverage omits this [Euless PD]: "It is believed to be an offense that was committed because of bias or prejudice and that is part of the case".
What does it take to make hate crime charges stick under Texas law? I hate to think.
In your mind, what different might/could/should media have said anybody said someone said -- working from an advocacy group presser and PD report, but no direct victim/witness availability?
(KDFW tracked some down later, as others will going forward.)
