Stephen Hardwick: This euphemism may be the cops’ fault if they only told reporters that the woman used “racial statements.”

what does “racial statement” even mean? it is the opposite of providing clarity to readers.

A woman in Texas has been charged with attempted capital murder and injury to a child after trying to drown a 3-year-old child at an apartment complex pool and making racial statements, according to police.

A woman is accused of attempting to drown a 3-year-old child in possible hate crime incident | CNNcnn.it A woman in Texas has been charged with attempted capital murder and injury to a child after trying to drown a 3-year-old child at an apartment complex pool and making racial statements, according to p...

This euphemism may be the cops’ fault if they only told reporters that the woman used “racial statements.”

This also shows how critical It is for journalists to step out of the role of just being law enforcement stenographers. Even if this explains why the initial report was so euphemized, cop-speak doesn’t justify a failure to do the work it takes to quickly give readers a more accurate follow-up report

CNN announces new AI newsbot just retweets press releases from the police, fires three human staff…

That's an extremely level of racism, even in these days, and in all of my 65 years. I remember the days when racism led to deaths and the cops doing nothing about it. But trying to kill a little toddler! It doesn't shock me more than shooting up a grade school, it shocks me differently.

Yes, it is. And if that’s all cops initially said, shame on them. If the cops gave more accurate information and CNN still only said “racial statements,” shame on CNN.

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.

Reporters, cops, prosecutors, defense counsel learn that in such events, verbal recall suffers -- distracted by imminent need for action, biased by reflexive side-taking and/or "gild the lily" story recounts. Wise to step carefully, reserving conclusory language for charging docs.

Whatever it is, the viability of criminal charges don’t depend on what the media report immediately after a crime.

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.)

Post