There is Great Food for Thought here.

What amazes/confounds me that the Media would go so far out of it's way 
to avoid "Accurate Associations", because it is not "Politically Correct", 
while at the same time it goes so far out of it's way to "Inaccurrately 
Stereotype"
Italian Americans.

It's Bizarre, It's Felliniesque, It defies Logic!!!! 
My compliments to Richard Cohen, the author.
===================================================== 
NEWSPAPER'S EFFORT TO SAVE READERS FROM 
BIGOTRY IS FUTILE AND MISDIRECTED

aka PROFILES IN EVASIVENESS

Richard Cohen  
The Washington Post
Editorial 
10/11/2001 
Page A33 

WASHINGTON -- You may have heard of Timothy Woodland. He is the Air Force
staff sergeant charged in the rape of a Japanese woman on Okinawa. You may
know that the Pentagon turned him over to Japanese authorities even in
advance of his indictment and that the case complicated U.S.-Japanese
relations. But you may not know that Woodland is black. Certainly, all of
Okinawa does. 

That fact, reported by Time magazine but almost nowhere else, is an
important aspect of the case since anti-black feeling runs high in Okinawa. 
But it is typical of the way much of the media handles race. The subject is
considered so touchy that editors sometimes withhold racial information even
when it is relevant. 

I raise the Woodland case because we are now pondering where and when it is
appropriate to recognize race or ethnicity, as with profiling, for instance.
We wonder if it is right -- never mind useful -- to give Arab or Islamic
travelers a more thorough search when they board airplanes. We wonder, in
short, if we are being prejudiced simply for noting race or ethnicity. 

In one sense, this national second-guessing is commendable. After all, when
it comes to race, our record is dismal. But in another sense, we have become
driveling idiots on matters of race and ethnicity. One hundred percent of
the terrorists involved in the September 11 mass murder were Arabs. Their
cohorts, if any, were probably Arabs, too -- at least Muslims. Ethnicity and
religion are the very basis of their movement. It hardly makes sense,
therefore, to ignore that fact and, say, give Swedish au pair girls heading
to the United States the same scrutiny as Arab men coming from the Middle
East. 

If we are to have a debate on this issue, we at least have to be honest --
and frank. In this regard, it would be useful if the press led the way. But
it won't. Instead, large and important parts of the American news media
practice a virulent form of political correctness that is indistinguishable
from censorship. 

The Washington Post, for instance, will not publish the race of a criminal
fugitive unless it is inarguably helpful in his capture. In cases of crime
stories, the Post uses race "when we have enough specific identifying
information to publish a description of a suspect who is being sought," says
the newspaper's style book. So, last summer, when a female jogger was beaten
and raped, the Post did not publish the police department's description of
the suspect: "A black male, under 30 years old, about 6 feet 1 to 2 inches
tall." Not very specific, I grant you, but a female jogger would still have
had a fair idea of who to look out for. 

The Post's ombudsman, Michael Getler, chided the paper for withholding the
information. Nonetheless, he wondered if such information only feeds
"dangerous and unfair racial stereotyping" and he quoted the Metro editor,
who did not wonder at all. She said the use of race -- when it had "no
relevance to the story" -- reminded her "of a time when newspapers pandered
to the racism in society." 

In other words, publishing in loco parentis, the paper will withhold
information lest the reader, apparently inclined to bigotry, jumps to the
wrong conclusion. 

Under the same reasoning, we should withhold the name of a gouging landlord
if it is recognizably Jewish -- sufficient evidence for anti- Semites to
validate a stereotype. The same argument could be made for any Italian
American arrested for organized crime. 

I fear the reader is on to us. When the press covers such matters as racial
profiling, the reader is forgiven for thinking he is not getting the whole
story. That usually isn't the case. But there is enough ducking, weaving and
outright self-censorship in this area to leave the reader -- including me on
occasion -- to question the media's objectivity. When, for example, the
press reports that racial profiling by itself -- whether traffic stops on
the Jersey Turnpike or strip searches by Customs -- usually produces nothing
of value, I'm not sure if that's believed. It just too neatly coincides with
what, clearly, is the company line. 

Just for the record, I have great reservations about the usefulness, never
mind the fairness, of racial or ethnic profiling. And, again for the record,
I do not need to be reminded of this country's racist past. But I sometimes
suspect -- and you might too - - that what I have learned about racial
profiling has passed through a certain ideological prism in which what ought
to be true is substituted for truth itself. 

Write to Richard Cohen in care of the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150
15th St. N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20071. His e-mail address is
cohenr@washpost.com