Letter to the editor: Poor Rosfeld headline, photo choice | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Poor Rosfeld headline, photo choice

I take issue with the photograph and headline editors chose to accompany an article about possible protests regarding the police shooting of Antwon Rose II (“Some preparing, others bracing, for start of police shooting trial in Pittsburgh,” March 18, TribLIVE).

The article seemed intended to capture the support that the community has given to the Rose family and the respect shown to Rose’s mother by activists who have embraced her request that no demonstrations be held until a verdict is handed down.

Yet, choosing a photo of black men and women raising their fists during a Juneteenth march to sit below a headline claiming that “some” people are “bracing” for protests is dog-whistle racism at best — a brazen attempt to gin up white anxiety as the Michael Rosfeld trial begins, at worst.

While some people might be “bracing” for protests, everybody I’ve spoken with is bracing for a different outcome: yet another police officer acquitted of killing an unarmed black person.

The killing of unarmed civilians by police is what is on trial here, not the tactics of demonstrators protesting injustice. I hope in the future editors will choose photos and headlines with that distinction in mind.

Terrell Thomas


The writer is a senior field organizer for the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s Campaign for Smart Justice.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.