The Media Fixation on the Phrase Unarmed Black Man

It’s becoming increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that there is rampant anti-police bias among many in the media.  “Unarmed black man”:  reflect on its usage in the reports on the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, or in Cleveland where a man and his female companion were shot repeatedly in their car after a high speed chase.

In Ferguson, a thorough investigation established that the “unarmed” Michael Brown posed a genuine threat to the officer’s safety.

In Cleveland, many pursuing police officers were convinced that the vehicle’s occupants were firing at them.

Implicit in the subject phrase is the assumption that the police shootings were unjustified – the victims shot were defenseless and posed no threat.  They were, in fact, targeted because they were black.

Of course, such has been perpetrated by some police office in the past and may very well still occur today.  But is that the rule, rather than the exception?  Recent events strongly suggest not.  Yet some in the media (CNN among others) apparently favor the term “unarmed black man” rather than a more neutral description that a law enforcement officer shot a suspect. 

Is the inflammatory expression used to generate viewership interest?  Is it simply a shorthand expression to avoid serious thought?  Or is it employed as a product of the user’s bias?  Probably all factors are at play.

Regardless, it is – without proof - irresponsible journalism that contributes to racial tension in our country.