3 Black Teens Beat White Kid; Caught on Video

Whether it is relevant to mention the race of people involved in a report of a criminal case like this is a difficult one. On the face of it, there doesn't appear to be any actual racial motivation for the crime - it's about 'drugs' and 'grassing', not about someone shouting racial abuse while the incident is going on, and not about a specific attack based primarily on the race of those involved. There doesn't seem to be any reference to race in the crime itself, so it doesn't seem relevant to mention it particularly in a brief report.

On the other hand, there is no pressing reason not to mention it, especially if it is in a more in-depth report on the crime that is trying to describe the full details. It may be that there was some kind of racial element that isn't apparent - it is possible that the victim was attacked partly on the basis of his race, or even that the 'grassing' that led to the attack was partly racially motivated. There's no suggestion of that, though, so to do more than just mention the race of those involved would seem to be highlighting an issue for reasons other than the facts surrounding the case itself. In other words, it would be fair enough to mention in the body of an article that the perpetrators happened to be black and the victim happened to be white - that is part of the facts of the case. However, splashing it as a 'blacks kids attack white kid' sensationalist headline would be wrong - that detail doesn't seem to have any actual relevance to what happened specifically, and it would be highlighting an issue that it isn't necessary to highlight. I would seem like an attempt to prejudice the reader in a certain direction on the basis of something that isn't directly relevant to what happened.

I don't dispute that assumptions are sometimes made and issues are sometimes highlighted in that way when they shouldn't be, and that 'white on black' attacks can sometimes be highlighted as that when it isn't actually relevant to the facts of the case. I don't dispute either that sometimes the media can err on the side of caution in terms of 'political correctness', and fail to mention at all something that might later prove to be relevant. It is something that the media should be very careful about, and don't always get right - applying the same standards in all such cases, no matter who the victims and perpetrators are. If it is an obviously 'racially motivated' attack, involving racial abuse or happening for no apparent reason other than a suspected racial motive, it should certainly be something particularly noted. If it isn't, though, while the race might be relevant and can certainly be mentioned, it shouldn't be an issue that is highlighted particularly, or splashed across the headline for the story, because it is misleading, and gives a false impression of the case.

This particular linked article certainly does that in highlighting race in the headline when it seems to have no relevance to the case at all, apparently purely on the basis of a minor mention in the body of the text that it hasn't been mentioned by others. Two wrongs don't make a right - other media shouldn't be 'afraid' to mention the facts of the case in their text, but since there is no apparent or alleged racial aspect to the facts of the case itself, no media outlets should be making race a prominent part of its headline. There is no need for them to do it at all, and it is certainly somewhat misleading in promoting an assumption that the case is something other than what it apparently actually is. What they should have done is either just mentioned it in the article, if the report was predominantly about the case itself, or mention the case itself in the context of media reporting if that is what they want to talk about, under a headline along the lines of a 'Media refuses to identify race involved in crime'. Instead of doing one or the other, they have combined the two things under a misleading headline that seems deliberately constructed to give a false impression of the case, and that is not the kind of thing a media outlet should be doing, IMO.

Any child beaten that severely should be cause for concern and outrage that it happened. What would you do if it was your child? How would you feel?
What if it had been three white youths beating a black child? Answer to that, the race baiters would be out in force. Race baiters want to keep racial prejudice alive, it keeps their faces in the news and a platform for their agenda.
When race baiters take a seat and shut up racial prejudice might end.

There are race baiters on both sides but none quite as vocal as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. This happened in Florida where racial tensions are still a factor. At any other time the three blacks might not have beat the boy but right now it would be hard to say it wasn't racial. Blacks are upset about the Martin case and some are still camped out in the governors office wanting the governor to do something about the SYG law.

You are right Sharpton and Jackson have nothing to do with this because it wasn't white on black. It was a terrible happening that three blacks beat up on a younger white boy.  Never mind they were older and probably bigger. Three on one is never a fair fight.  I don't call selling drugs anything that should go on in a schoolyard, black or white. Apparently the school authorities didn't take it seriously or the parents would have been called to deal with the issue. Unfortunately the youngest and most vulnerable suffers.

Prohibition against drug use should never be lifted if it keeps drugs out of the hands of children. Evidenced by this story maybe the drug laws should be tightened.

Parents enlisting their children to get drugs, how utterly appalling and shocking. It is no wonder we should worry about where our country is headed.

So what you are saying is that the adults are the reason Wa. has marijuana in school.. hmmm. How does the legal sale of marijuana keep it out of schools?  If the schools have it now, it will be more prevalent after the prohibition is lifted. So good luck with that thought on taking it out of schools.
Maybe the parents weren't enlisting but contributing to the delinquency of minors.