The AP earlier today posted a story about a settlement between Columbus, Ohio, and the family of Andre Hill. Columbus police shot and killed Hill in December. Police say Hill “emerged from a garage holding a cellphone.”
The story is familiar, as is the way it is framed, mostly through language usage that tends to favor law enforcement: passive voice, word choice, euphemism. Black men get shot by police, as if it happens accidentally, or are involved in a “police-involved shooting.” They are not killed, but fatally shot or fatally wounded. And police are granted a presumption of innocence that should be the norm in all crime reporting, but is not.
Watch the local news. Listen to the way the crimes are described. As an example, here is a news story from the NBC News New York:
The Union County Prosecutor's Office says a 16-year-old is behind bars Friday after stealing a car from a Roselle home on White Street around 11:30 p.m. the night before. The car's owner had arrived home moments earlier and was unloading the car when the young thief struck, according to the prosecutor's release.
The unnamed kid “is behind bars Friday after stealing a car,” the word “after” tying the action to the kid, who also is referred to as “the young thief.” An editor’s argument here might be that the kid is not named and, therefore, there is no potential libel. But that is not the point. There is a kid in jail and the kid has been convicted by the story’s writer.
For the most part, police shootings are not treated in this manner.
An updated AP story can be found here. I also am including a screen shot that I marked up.