The controversy surrounding the black politician once seen as a rising star in his party has deadlocked city government and become a distraction to the Democratic Party as it struggles with the issue of how to handle Michigan delegates still being contested by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Please help me understand the relevance of stating that he is a “black politician.” Why did the writer feel the mayor’s race needed to be used to describe him and what does his race have to do with the charges that he is facing? I have yet to hear of Eliot Spitzer being described as the white politician when anything is written or said about the sex scandal he was involved in.I count on Reuters for unbiased, factual reporting of the news. Can I no longer expect this without racial undertones such as this being thrown in as well?
His race has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said about him. If he had been a white politician in the same exact situation would this reporter have said, “the white politician…”? Sometimes race is relevant to a story. It seems discriminatory to note it when there is no relevance. It contributes to the perception that black people are black people while white people are people. It also suggests that his race had something to do with his alleged transgressions.
A number of readers raised this point. The story should have made clear from the start why his race was mentioned. Subsequent updates included this elaboration: “I’m deeply disappointed in the prosecutor’s decision,” said Kilpatrick, who earlier compared his critics to a “lynch mob” and said he had been subjected to racial epithets since the scandal broke. GBU Editor
REUTERS photo by Rebecca Cook