From the local paper  –  Dated July 18, 2020.

Stick with me here.
I’m looking at word choice, not content.

INDIANAPOLIS
Two men were charged Friday in an assault on a Black man during which someone threatened to ‘get a noose’ after claiming… .

In a typical newspaper style, the sentence is like two paragraphs long.   That’s how they get people to read.

Starting at the top…

“Two men….”
—   It doesn’t provide the age or ethnicity of the men charged.  At this point, it could be anyone.

Then, we move on to “a Black man…”

Okay… so… bam…

The ‘two men’ has become ‘two white men’ in the minds of most readers.    This may or may not be true, but that is an (unfortunately) undeniable connection.

The ‘get a noose’ further adds traits to the ‘two men.’   Images of white, scruffy, undereducated, rednecks come into play.   They probably have shotguns in the back of their truck.

There’s also a potent big B in the word Black.
Black is a descriptor.   Unless the word is a proper noun, a capitalized letter shouldn’t be used.

That’s just a universal rule…. one that’s slowly fading into obscurity because our language is falling apart.   But, it promotes the lack of using capital letters because hitting the shift key is too difficult.

Not only was a black man threatened, but a Black man was also threatened.

What’s the difference between a black man and a Black man?
Was he especially dark?   Wouldn’t that be racist?

If the ‘two men’ were described as ‘two white men,’ should the white be White?
Wouldn’t equal capitalization promote equality in the article?

What would be the difference between a White man and a white man?
Is a White man really really pasty?  Like Zuck’s sunscreen to his face pasty?

Why is ‘get a noose’ in quotes?
It’s part of the sentence.   The writer and publisher are making sure ‘get a noose’ was threatened by the two (assumed) white men.

This article was on page one above the fold.    It’s meant to get the attention of the reader.   Its purpose is to get people to read and shell out a couple of dollars so the newspaper can continue to pull in advertisements and stay in existence.

Just that very first line is itching in racism and judgment.

And they back into it.

They start with the two (white) men.  Why not “A black man was threatened… ”

Is it because they feel that their readers are more interested in the wrongdoings of two (white) men rather than a black man being threatened?

During this social climate, how could that possibly be the case?

I know I’m rambling here, but the first line just irritated the heck out of me.

If the offending men were Japanese, would the article state that right away?
Probably not.   What if the offenders where other black men?

Would they say, Two black men where charged…. Black man?

The key is money.
News organizations are desperate for revenue.   We all know that.  That’s why journalism is in the crapper.  Well, one of the reasons.

So, from this first line, what can we assume?

Hum… racism sells.
Period.

I can’t even really blame the writer for being slanted as an article is (supposedly) vetted through an editor or two.   The wording could be changed at any time.

To be nonbiased, if the ethnicity of the victim is mentioned so should the ethnicity of the offender.

By not doing so, the reader’s mind fills in the blank with potentially untrue information with perpetuates racism… the very thing most news organizations try to disavow.

It’s irritating, stupid, and ignorant.
I don’t know what else to say about that.