I looked at the NY Times, USA Today, BBC and the Huffington post in terms of their media coverage on the Henry Gates Scandal. Henry Gates was an African American professor at Harvard University. He had just returned from a trip overseas and upon arriving him found his door jammed and had to force it open with the help of his driver. A neighbor called the police thinking that someone was breaking in and when they arrived Gates allegedly shouted at the police officer and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Gates feels that he was arrested based on racial profiling.
The New York Times clearly takes Mr. Gates' side. The writer says that what he did was irritating not criminal and that the police officer should have left, no matter what the professor was shouting. The article is densely packed with information, the writers personal opinion and examples of other times when similar situations have occurred. I think that this article did a good job in not oversimplifying the matter and concluded with wondering whether or not this is acceptable, regardless of whether the citizen in white or black, which to me is the real point here. Of the 4 the New York Times by far had the most clear point of view and opinion. While the others were more fact of quote based the New York Times article really tried to hit people hearts and talked about human tendencies and feelings.
BBC's article was very short, about 2 paragraphs long, and oversimplified the matter. They provide a short account of what happened with no real slant, focus or sources.
USA Today provides a somewhat liberal description of what happened that day. They provide quotes from gate's attorney and provide examples of a pattern of racial profiling in Cambridge. Initially I thought there there was not much slant to the article but upon further inspection I think that they take Gate's side in the incident. they do not really provide the officers account of what happened but provide a lot of information from Gate's point of view.
Of the 4 The Huffington Post provides by far the most liberal description of what happened. They had accounts of both what Gates believed had happened and the officers account of what had happened. They provided many outside sources and quotes from Gate's colleagues, Reverend Al Sharpton and others. It also gave many more details than the other articles did about his court date and his academic background. It does the best job of the 4 in not oversimplifying the matter, and it is densely packed with sources and information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/us/24iht-letter.html?scp=1&sq=henry%20gates&st=cse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8161929.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-23-cop-gates_N.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/henry-louis-gates-jr-arre_n_241407.html
I agree with your theory on this matter regarding racial profiling. Mr. Gates seems to be an upstanding citizen and LIVES in his residence in Boston, MA. Even though i wasn't at the scene, it seems pretty obvious that a person, with the appropriate credentials, stating that they live in the residence should have the rights to address their case and the police should have gone through the correct procedures for this specific duty. It was wrong for the police to act the way they did.
ReplyDeleteAbraham Dwek