PressEthic

Michael Getler does have a point.

Given the information The Washington Post had on both of these stories, it's reasonable to run them in the ways it did. But however sincere his explanation, it might not be enough for angry readers - especially coming from an ombudsman taking the paper's side.

It's just as reasonable to see how readers would construe the whole thing as a cop-out for ignoring a black man's murder and giving prominence to a white man's murder. Getler acknowledges that sometimes the former seems plausible:

But it is also true that a review of the clips shows that a vast number of murders in Southeast and other predominantly black areas wind up in the briefs or crime columns. It is probably true that some, or many, of these merited more coverage.

Assuming the Post has a fairly rational and intelligent readership, that lack of information decided length of the Southeast man's story would be believable. If it happens repeatedly, the ombudsman and the paper have a little more explaining to do.

Getler doesn't have a panacea for racially biased coverage, nor should he be expected to. But it rings slightly hollow to throw an idea like that out with no explanation or solution except to say "But look, there was one really good story!"

He offers this partial explanation:

Not many newspapers, including The Post, have the levels of diversity that really put a paper in better touch with all its readers...

To really make an effort at equal coverage, it might help not to think of it as diversity. Racism still exists, of course, so maybe this is an idealistic concept. But readers will never feel properly represented if journalists think, "If only we had a black reporter that could talk to these people."

We might be surprised at how accommodating people can be if we take a genuine interest in their lives.