Keith Woods, the VP of Newsroom Diversity and Training at NPR, offers different ideas in reporting on racism so journalism to step into the boundaries of opinion. Throughout his opinion piece, Keith stresses how important it is to report on racism while keeping one’s opinion in check. He calls refraining from that label “the fragile line that separates the profession from the rancid, institution-debasing cesspool that is today’s politics.” It keeps reporting from becoming the same as opinion, which allows it to hold the powerful responsible. However, Woods offers ideas to present racial injustice without becoming opinion. He writes, “Report. Quote people. Cite sources. Add context.Leave the moral labeling to the people affected; to the opinion writers, the editorial writers, the preachers and philosophers; and to the public we serve.”
NPR choosing not to use racist as a label has both pros and cons. Does avoiding using racist but still providing context that connects the president’s speech and action to definitive racist history allow people to come to their own conclusions? Absolutely. However, if the actions of the president escalate (more than they already have), will they be able to avoid racist as a label without it feeling like a cop out? Only time will tell. The decision is correct for NPR, but still could face backlash. They take pride in their journalism and as they see racist as an opinion, it keeps them to their own standards. Using the label vs. not using it separates journalism from other media. Journalists keeping opinion out lets readers make decisions based on the facts presented. Avoiding opinion in journalism holds people accountable for the opinions they form.
NPR is a unique American news site, and it does have a reputation to protect. I think it would be difficult for them to use the term racist, even if Trump “escalate’s” his language.