NYT Can Omit Black Homicide Rates
False Assumption: Mainstream media can safely withhold information on racial gaps in homicide rates from readers without impairing public understanding of key events.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
Modern America features a stark racial gap in crime rates. This fact matters for grasping events like the George Floyd incident. Mainstream media stayed reluctant to report it honestly.
The New York Times used the phrase 'black homicide rate' exactly three times in 174 years. The first came in 1973 amid data journalism's start: 'Murder Rate for Blacks in City 8 Times That for White Victims.' Readers of every word since 1973 would encounter it twice more at most.
Today, New York Times readers remain largely uninformed on this basic statistic. Coverage of crime and policing proceeds without routine context on homicide disparities. Critics note this leaves opinions on racial controversies irrational.
People Involved
- In the realm of media criticism, Steve Sailer emerged as a persistent voice. He pointed out the New York Times's sparse coverage of black homicide rates over more than half a century. Critics argue this omission left readers in the dark on vital statistics. Sailer, writing as an analyst, highlighted how such gaps shaped public misconceptions. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“If you read every word of the New York Times over the last 52 years, how often have you stumbled across the phrase "black homicide rate?"”— How well informed are NYT readers?
Organizations Involved
The New York Times stood at the center of this practice. Over 174 years, the paper mentioned the phrase 'black homicide rates' just three times, even as these figures bore on national crime debates. In 1973, it ran an early data journalism piece on the topic, noting racial disparities, but coverage faded soon after. Mounting evidence challenges whether this restraint served readers well. Institutions like the Times, critics say, profited from a narrative that sidestepped uncomfortable facts, sustaining a selective silence. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The phrase “black homicide rate” has appeared exactly three times in the 174 year history of the New York Times”— How well informed are NYT readers?
“The first and most informative New York Times article about the black homicide rate was in 1973 at the dawn of Data Journalism: Murder Rate for Blacks in City 8 Times That for White Victims”— How well informed are NYT readers?
The Foundation
The assumption took root in a broader reluctance among mainstream media to report racial differences forthrightly. Experts treated homicide gaps as peripheral, fostering the sub-belief that crime stories needed no such backdrop. By the 1970s, a 1973 New York Times article cited an eightfold disparity in rates, which seemed credible at the time. Yet coverage dwindled, as if the facts were too volatile for sustained discussion. Growing questions surround this foundation, with critics arguing it downplayed a core American reality. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“But the mainstream media has been reluctant to be honest about the differences.”— How well informed are NYT readers?
“One of the most important facts to understand about modern America is the racial gap in crime rate.”— How well informed are NYT readers?
How It Spread
The idea spread through consistent underreporting in major outlets. The New York Times set an example by confining mentions of black homicide rates to three instances across nearly two centuries. This pattern echoed in broader media, where omission became the norm. Social pressures and editorial choices reinforced the silence, punishing those who pressed for fuller disclosure. Critics argue this propagation impaired public discourse, though the matter remains debated. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“But the mainstream media has been reluctant to be honest about the differences.”— How well informed are NYT readers?
“The phrase “black homicide rate” has appeared exactly three times in the 174 year history of the New York Times”— How well informed are NYT readers?
Harm Caused
Readers of the New York Times often formed views on events like the George Floyd case without key homicide statistics. This lack of context, critics contend, skewed rational assessments of race and crime. Informed debates on policing suffered as a result, with essential facts missing from the conversation. Mounting evidence suggests such omissions fostered misunderstandings, yet experts remain split on the full extent of the damage. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“For example, how could you hold a rational opinion about the George Floyd brouhaha without being informed of the extraordinary racial gap in homicidal crime?”— How well informed are NYT readers?
“how could you hold a rational opinion about the George Floyd brouhaha without being informed of the extraordinary racial gap in homicidal crime?”— How well informed are NYT readers?
Sources
- [1]