A tragic slaying, and a rush to judgment
Did the horrifying murder last month of Los Feliz teen Lily Burk get so much media attention because the 17-year-old victim was Jewish? At least one reader thinks so. A more puzzling question for us at the Opinion Manufacturing Division, though, is whether we should provide a forum for such ugly allegations.
If you've ever wondered why your comments take so long to appear, both on this blog and on the graffiti boards on latimes.com's editorials and Op-Eds, it's because each comment has to be screened by somebody here at the OMD. If a comment doesn't meet The Times' standards -- if it contains profanity, or is blatantly offensive or inflammatory -- it doesn't get posted. Most of the time, deciding whether or not to post something is a snap, and the vast majority of reader responses make their way onto the site -- latimes.com readers are a pretty well-educated, civil bunch. But sometimes, making a call on a reader comment is harder than, say, making a call on President Obama's health care plans. A comment in response to one of today's editorials is a case in point.
The editorial concerned Burk's murder, and the effect it might have on California prison policy. One reader submitted the following:
On the day Lily Burke was killed a man killed his daughter and then himself and several others were shot and killed in the LA area. Lily Burke was a jew so her death is still in the media. It is an insult that the media considerers a jewish girls death so much more important than anyone else's. I had a friend murdered. She was a Mexican American around Lily Burke's age and also killed by a stranger with a criminal record. Her death was not on TV. She got a little spot in a local newspaper. Is a jewish girls death really that much more important than anyone else's?
Should The Times post this comment, or others like it? This one posed so many problems that I ran that question past my fellow editorial writers. It is, on its face, anti-Semitic, playing into a vicious stereotype that Jews control the American media. On the other hand, it raises an important point that should be of great concern to journalists and readers: Do newspapers and other media value the lives of some kinds of crime victims more than others? If this reader had criticized the media for playing up the Burk story because she was white, we would have posted it without hesitation. So why would we be reluctant to post it because the criticism is based on her Jewishness?
The response from my colleagues was mixed. Some thought the comment was clearly anti-Semitic and should be junked; Jews have been victimized for centuries based on imaginary conspiracy theories, so such statements must be treated differently than comments about a non-threatened majority such as whites. Others noted that questionable comments like this one are extremely common on non-newspaper blogs and they provide fodder for the kind of reader interaction and dialogue that is the entire purpose of our forum.
In the end, we decided not to post it, but to blog about it instead. In part, that's because we haven't been able to determine whether or not Burk was Jewish -- her parents are of mixed religious heritage. Does the reader who posted this comment about her know something we don't?
Photo: Lily Burk, in a photo taken by a classmate. Credit: Sarah Faulk
The coverage has struck me as rather muted considering how horrible the crime was. And also the fact that the alleged killer was out on a pass from a residential drug treatment facility to visit the DMV on a day when the DMV employees were furloughed. So one branch of state government let this guy out to run an errand that shouldn't have even been allowed that day. I have seen one of your columnists suggest that this shows why budget cuts are bad. I think there is a different lesson to take about public employees.
Posted by: willis | August 03, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Generally speaking the media gives more coverage to stories where the victims are white middle class, or just middle class, that is a fact. Having said that, the Lily Burk story captivated so many of us because of the nature of the crime and the nature of the victim.
Lily and her parents could have been any of us.
We can relate to the parents of Lily Burk and can see our children as not much different than Lily, regardless of ethnicity or gender. I know since Lily's passing, I have spent more time talking to my children about what would they do in that situation, coming up with scenarios and codes and trying to make some sense of this senseless waste of a young life.
I did feel there was more than normal coverage of this story, even when there were no new developments but I attributed that to the fact that the father is a journalist at the times.
I do feel sense anti semitism coming from the person whose post you are blogging about since Lily Burk's religion is unknown.
Posted by: Giovanna | August 03, 2009 at 09:03 PM
This is ridiculous. Who knew she was Jewish? I don't remember seeing anything about that in the articles I read. No, she was a beautiful, decent young woman who from the looks of her upbringing was upper middle class and she was a beloved only child. The fact that she was Jewish is totally irrelevant.
Yes, it may too bad that a Mexican girl did not receive the media coverage- but like it or not the murder of a Mexican girl is not considered as terribly odd. We read about drive-by killings in the hood DAILY. Its not that her life meant any less to her family- but we are (rightly or wrongly) accustomed to reading this sort of thing on a daily basis.
Posted by: Jan Kerr | August 04, 2009 at 09:17 AM
I think that there are a few noteworthy reasons which make this case more of a "media-friendly" case. I don't think that her religion, class or background has much to do with anything. Having met Lily, I know that NONE of those details would have ever changed her impression of a person upon meeting them.
Some noteworthy details:
-This outrageously disgusting crime occurred in broad daylight. How often do we read about a teen's murder happening in the open daytime air of Los Angeles?
-This beautiful girl worked at rehabilitation clinics and needle exchange programs treating exactly the type of person who took her life from her. Again, this doesn't happen too often. How regularly do you see a teen put down their iPhone, let alone reach out to struggling addicts?
-This horrible tragedy happened at a peculiar and shaky time for the state of California. A potential "solution" to our budget problems is one where thousands of non-violent and low-level offenders would be taken off parole, let loose early, and altogether forgotten. As a potential "problem-solver," our state is trying to decide where to draw the line. Unfortunately, according to the proposed solution, Charles Samuel would have probably been released soon anyways. Because of his sealed records, we weren't informed of his violent history until recently.
I, obviously, have no way of telling you what the reporters who have been paying close attention to this case are thinking, but I really do not believe that their constant reports were because of the color of her skin, her religion, or her gender.
Lily, you were a blossoming young lady. Always kind, always caring, and always making everyone laugh. I have seen how this is affecting your friends, and I can only imagine the pain that your family is going through. We'll meet again, lovely Lily. Here's to your dreams...
Posted by: OutspokenStudent | August 05, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Sorry -- but it's true. This type of media coverage is no different than the "Missing White Girl Syindrome" that was dominating network and cable news for awhile (see below link). I agree that a minority victim simply does not get the exposure that a white person - mainly females - tend to get whenever something like this happens. However, religion has nothing to do with it. It's just being "white". The "Jew" comment was obviously made out of anger, and is borderline Anti-Semitic - but yes, because the victim was a young white girl, the attention was very robust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
Posted by: Dan | August 05, 2009 at 09:41 AM
If the LA Times were an organization dedicated to Public Service then it could easily be charged with racism and classism in the attention it gives to white crime victims and the neglect it shows to all others.
However, the LA Times is a business, and must please their source of revenue. Increasingly, this publication must rely on advertisers, rather than subscribers, so running only stories and opinions that please advertisers and/or promote their agendas is a valid and necessary business practice.
Excluding blatantly racist opinion is a wise business move, unless those opinions can be used in a discussion about racism itself.
Naturally, the Times could go after another market by offering agenda-free reporting, removing bias from the stories it does report, and start discussing social concerns rather than trying to direct them.
Posted by: Bruce Wilson | August 05, 2009 at 12:58 PM
"If this reader had criticized the media for playing up the Burk story because she was white, we would have posted it without hesitation. So why would we be reluctant to post it because the criticism is based on her Jewishness?
The response from my colleagues was mixed. Some thought the comment was clearly anti-Semitic and should be junked..."
This is a profoundly disturbing sentiment. It is okay, "without hesitation" to publish a viewpoint that this story is widely reported because the victim was white, but NOT okay if white is switched out for Jewish?
I'm part Jewish and pro-Semitic... you are playing right into anti-Semitic hands. You are doing exactly what they accuse Jews of doing: allowing disparagement of gentile whites while protecting Jewish whites.
This column tells us you have a double-standard when it comes to allowing people to complain about too much coverage for one group versus another. It's okay if others vent that white victims get too much coverage but not okay for Jewish whites. Worse, it was so little of a problem that you don't explain why there is a double-standard.
If an anti-Semite points to this article and calls me a fool, I honestly don't know what I can say in rebuttal.
Posted by: Em | August 05, 2009 at 01:10 PM
No, it's because she's a teenager and white. Not because of her religion. This reminded me strongly of the recent LAT Column One about two people, a college age white girl and a 55-year-old immigrant, who were killed on the same night, and the disparity of allotted police resources, media coverage, and end results.
Posted by: Michael | August 05, 2009 at 02:34 PM
I do think comments like that should be posted. Maybe the Times likes to think it's coverage is nicely balanced but as an ex-resident of L.A. I know for a fact this is a long held belief that is not backed up by fact. Any white person gets killed in the west and it's covered extensively. How many people are killed in South Central every week that are dismissed by both the paper and the public as 'just another piece of gang violence'? The white readers in the Valley or West L.A. don't care about brown or black kids getting gunned down and your paper has always reflected that bias. Try to hide it if you want, but the bias exists. If you don't like the name, then disprove it. Because I'd have to see it in black and white before I'll believe it.
Posted by: Pat Brown | August 06, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Mr. Brown, maybe you left before the Times launched its Homicide blog in January 2007. You can check it out here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/. Every reported homicide gets covered there. No, it's not the front page, so it doesn't prove we're balanced in our coverage. It just shows that we're not ignoring anyone's murder.
Posted by: Jon Healey | August 06, 2009 at 06:02 PM
This issue is about class and power, not about race or religion.
If Lily Burk was exactly who she is except black (in other words, had successful and power professional parents, went to a fancy private school, etc), the story would have likely been covered in a big way too.
The comment from Jan Kerr assuming that the "Mexican" girl referenced by the original poster was from the "hood" reinforces my point. Who said the Mexican-American girl was from the hood? No one said it. Jan Kerr assumed she was, because of her race. But his/her point was deeper than just that assumption - it's that class and power trump both race and religion. If the Mexican-American girl was wealthy, and not from the assumed-ghetto, would Jan Kerr change his/her tune? I know what they say about those that ass-u-me, but I've got to say I do think so...
Posted by: Stacey | August 26, 2009 at 04:57 PM