DWB: Apparently it exists in my city...

...Driving while black, that is.

A study from the Transportation Department found that last year, black and Latino drivers pulled over in Illinois were more likely to get a ticket or undergo a vehicle search, compared with whites.

...obvious, you say?

Well, here's the rub: Not only were minority drivers involved in traffic stops at a higher rate than their portion of the state population would indicate - accounting for 12 percent more traffic stops than would be expected - but drugs and weapons were more likely to be found in the cars of WHITE drivers.

Among other findings:
-Fifty-five percent of white drivers got tickets after being pulled over, versus 65 percent of Hispanic drivers and 62 percent of black drivers.

-Non-white drivers were stopped for a median time of 15 minutes and 60 percent received a ticket. Whites, on the other hand, were pulled over for a median time of 12 minutes, with 56 percent receiving a ticket.

-Police conducted searches on 36 out of 1,000 minorities stopped, and 12 out of 1,000 whites.

While this isn't earth-shattering news to me, as I lean on the cynical side in terms of my view of law enforcement, it does make evident some "swept under the rug" tendencies.

Also, reading other people's thoughts on the issue is pretty shocking to me. While I concede that some make valuable points - Why focus solely on race? Why not the crime that led to the traffic stop too? (valid, but see above point on drugs/weapons) - I was shocked to see how many people came to the defense of police. (Check these comments on ABC's website: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=8249671) Some of these, particularly the one that can "guarantee that 75 percent were illegal aliens," only re-sweep this under the carpet.

In another twist, the ACLU is pushing for state police to stop conducting consent searches. A lawyer for the ACLU said consent searchers are sure to be biased against minorities and that the practice is too subjective. Here, I'm between a rock and a hard place. This study suggests that yes, minorities do bear the brunt of these searches, but the searches themselves do serve a purpose in terms of stopping criminal activity. I vote in favor of addressing the study's findings first, and factoring in some of the variables the pro-cop commenters brought in, before we get rid of searches. Maybe we can attack the "subjectivity" of the practice without gutting it entirely?

So, Mayor Rahm, maybe you can add this to your to-do list? That is, after you lay off hundreds of city workers and build those bike lanes...

Photo Credit: AOL Autos/WMMJ - MAJIC 102.3 (Washington, D.C.)

"Dressed for Distress": This is news?

DISCLAIMER: This post deviates from the "Race" component of this blog, but I still thought it worthy of discussion.

I read this article about a week ago in the Chicago Tribune, but it also ran in Newsweek. The first thing I noticed, on a Trib page filed with news about the UN summit coming to Chicago, further signs of global warming and presidential candidate conjectures, was that its author, Robin Givhan, is a woman. Why not let John Kass tell the relatively lighter fashion story, rather than his prime-positioned commentary on concealed carry in Illinois (or lack thereof)? Looking at her website, I saw that Givhan actually considers herself a "fashion critic and style writer," but I still wince at the idea - just as I do when I think racial/ethnic minorities are getting the "minority beat" - that women get the "fluff" news.

Next, I wondered: Why is this particular story worthy of reporting? Who really cares what Huma Abedin, aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, wears on any given day? Pre- or post-Twitter debacle, Abedin's "flattering corn-silk blue, slim black trousers, and a fuchsia sliver of a belt" provide little, if any, insight into this woman. I get the whole "fashion is a declaration of who you are" argument, but in such a heavy dose, it serves in my mind to reduce Abedin to her wardrobe. We saw the same thing with First Lady Michelle Obama - "Look at her in that affordable J Crew dress!" - and thankfully Michelle was able to push beyond it and force the public to look at the issues she stood for rather than the heels she stood on.

Abedin has, as have likely all slighted spouses in Washington, been through the ringer. Her husband was unfaithful (and very, VERY un-Internet savvy), the media storm went on far too long and she undoubtedly paid dearly for Weiner's errors. Pregnant to boot? Clearly, Abedin has a pile and a half on her mind. But, Givhan says, "she looks like herself. She exudes control and calm. And most important, she looks relevant."

We would do well not to let her relevance - or that of any other "political wife," as Givhan calls her - stem from her suiting.

Photo Credit: Susan Walsh/AP

One more mob musing

As I thought about that previous post, the part of me that is quick to jump on any sort of white bias wondered why these attacks got so much coverage, relative to the incidents that undoubtedly occur citywide on a daily basis. Why does a robbery, or two or three, on Michigan Avenue or on the Red Line CTA get the attention of multiple media outlets when Englewood shootings, South Side beatings and Back of the Yards child neglect get 100 words on the Trib's Breaking News ticker? At first glance, it's maddening to think that because the mob scene haunted fancier hoods the issue got more press. The portion of non-whites, it seemed to me, was indirectly proportional to the amount - and perhaps perceived value - of reporting on a given area.

But on second reflection, I was able to set down the jaded a bit. These were crimes in close succession, supposedly stemming from the same set of perpetrators. The victims were seemingly random, and the criminals appeared to target people with electronic toys (iPods and the like) in tow. In short, I now think there were many things about these crimes, aside from their whereabouts, that made them worthy of heightened coverage.

Am I off base? Did this receive undue discussion? Could/Should it have been talked about more? Why do you think this story was covered as it was? Would it get the same attention if it happened in Englewood?

Photo Credit: Jordan Fischer/The Examiner

New mayor, new blog bent...

...well, maybe not "new," as in "I've-now-merged-with-AOL," but new as in, I want to change the direction of this blog. My year hiatus, albeit unintentionally, taught me that I'm less interested in what I think and more interested in what the world is saying about race and media. And so, with that, I pick this up again, but now I invite a conversation. Please post, get mad at me, "Amen" me, send me material you see around you. A blog - hell, any media - gets its value from the ripple effect is brings.

Living in Chicago (ok, ok, Evanston) for what will be a year next month, I've seen more than enough "Man, I should blog about that" moments, but none has piqued my interest quite as much as this city's recent wave of "flash mobs." (For more on this, search "flash mobs" on ChicagoTribune.com, or click here.) Basically, a group of young'ns launched a series of robberies in the city's downtown area, physically assaulting the victims and taking their belongings. The mayor--Mayer RAHM--spoke on the topic; police vowed to get to the bottom of the issue, even assign more cops to the streets near Michigan Avenue shopping Mecca; and several arrests were eventually made.

The coverage had dwindled quite a bit when I came across this from Chicago Reader reporter Michael Miner. "When Race Isn't Mentioned" focuses on the coverage - or lack thereof - of the racial identities of the assailants in these "mob attacks." Miner reviews three viewpoints as to why this is so, also summing up the thoughts of various Tribune reporters. According to Miner, the lack of race could be the product of one of these:

1. "The papers don't want any responsibility for the vile commentary sure to erupt from a noxious element of the readership. Better to be accused by those readers of gutless PC liberalism than be accused by more high-minded citizens of enabling the rabble-rousers." - I take this to mean that "the papers" wanted to absolve themselves of any responsibility for racist/bigoted comments.

2. "The Robert Frost school of news management," as Miner dubs it. I take this to mean, based on his subsequent definition, that the press was cagy in its lack of coverage. "If we don't write about race, we can write about the people who DO." Essentially, the media ignored race to ensure the editorial meetings were fruitful.

3. "The press was simply a little ahead of the curve." It is here that Miner is most optimistic. People, he posits, don't look at race as much as they used to. Race doesn't matter like it once did. From this perspective, "the initial race-free coverage of the flash mob outbreak can almost look like progress."

I think there may have been little coverage of race for all these reasons simultaneously. The last thing journalism needs is more grief about what it covers, what it doesn't cover, what it means and what effect it has. Better safe than sorry, as the saying goes. As mom always says, "You never regret saying nothing."

If media doesn't need a spanking over its coverage, what it does need, is coverage in the first place. And a spate of theft across the city is prime coverage, ripe for the reporting. And why not squeeze out every last bit of juice from the story by leaving blanks to be filled by others? (Which can then be fodder for columnists...)

To the third point - that race is less important than it once was - I say this is a half-truth. Sure, it may be more important that someone roughed-up Billy Corgan's brother than what the suspect fills out on the census form, but the mere fact that Miner's column, and those of all the Tribune reporters he reviews, land in the papers is evidence that race - out in the open or hushed out of print - is still an issue in our society. Whether this is good or bad is certainly a matter of debate, as are the reasons why race was largely left out of this news coverage. (Some may argue, of course, that race WAS prevalent in the mob reporting, and I'd love to hear from those people.)

Which reason of Miner's rings most true to you? Which is the most preferable, in terms of societal progress? Are there others to be considered?