A young white American murdered a prominent church minister and eight churchgoers while reportedly declaring his hatred for black people. The crime poses two major questions about US society - its racial divide and its lax gun laws.
Both of those questions were raised in a considered and sensitive statement by America’s black president, Barack Obama, in which he spoke of his country’s “dark past”.
Unsurprisingly, the story of the massacre received front page coverage in newspapers across the USA. But how was it covered by Britain’s national newspapers?
First, the bald facts. The shootings featured in stories and pictures on the front pages of the Independent (“America’s shame”), the Guardian (“Cold stare of the racist killer who stunned America”) and Metro (“I have to kill you”). There were also small page 1 blurbs in the Times and Daily Mirror.
The Daily Telegraph confined its coverage to a foreign news page, here. The Times, in similar fashion, ran it on pages 30 and 31. The Daily Mail gave it a page and a half. The Sun’s spread, headlined Fiend from the swamp, was complemented by an editorial.
i’s story was on page 6: “Suspected killer of nine black churchgoers was given gun by his parents for 21st birthday”. The Mirror’s spread used a quote headline from the suspect, Dylann Roof, “I have to do it.. you rape our women & are taking over our country”. It also carried an editorial.
In the Daily Express it was on page 9 and in the Daily Star it was a spread on pages 18 and 19 (although it also used a quote from the killer on page 2).
Second, what three editorials said. The Independent (“Divided nation”) began:
“Even in America, a country by now inured to mass killings, Wednesday evening’s shooting rampage in a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in which nine people died, has come as a particular shock”.
It appeared, said the Indy, to be “a classic example of hate crime” that “will do nothing to improve the deteriorating state of race relations in the US”. It continued:
“In the wake of a series of police killings of unarmed black suspects and the unrest that ensued – from Ferguson, Missouri, last summer, to Baltimore just a few weeks ago – there is no doubt the mood has changed.
A CBS/New York Times poll last month, in the aftermath of the Baltimore riots, found that 61% of Americans believe race relations are generally bad – a view shared by blacks and whites alike...
This deterioration comes after America appeared to have exorcised some of its ancient racial demons by electing its first black president...
Other factors, of course, are at work. The obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies like that at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, established by free blacks and slaves in Charleston at the start of the 19th century.
There is even talk of arming pastors, a step that would be almost comical, were it not so desperate”.
The Indy also pointed out that, despite advances, “the deck of life chances is still stacked against black Americans. They earn less than whites, their opportunities for advancement are far fewer”.
The Mirror editorial (“Gun control vital for US”) also referred to the “continuing deep cultural divide in the US”, adding:
“The election of the country’s first black president was a milestone but there are still Americans who hate other Americans simply because of the colour of their skin”.
But its major argument was about “the wide availability of guns” that allows weapons to be acquired by “violent bigots”. It concluded with a comment sympathetic to the US president:
“Barack Obama captured the sombre mood, as he so often does, when he revealed he and his wife Michelle knew several members and the pastor of the South Carolina church.
The familiarity of his words – America, the land of grieving after massacres – reflects both the need to heal that racial divide and remove guns from a heavily armed population”.
But the Sun (“Deadly US toll”) condemned Obama for his failure to restrict gun ownership. “Yet again”, it said, Obama expressed grief, but “what will he do this time? Nothing”. It contended:
“Obama should concentrate more on why the US has far more massacres than any other western nation where guns are legal.
And whether it is caused by a society that fails to help disturbed loners while at the same time celebrating criminal notoriety”.
Ok, that’s the facts. Now, third, for my comment, albeit tentative, on the disparity of British national paper coverage of this savage racist crime.
I can’t help but note that the left-of-centre, liberal press gave the story much greater prominence and more space than the right-of-centre papers (with the notable and honourable exception of the Sun).
It is, frankly, astonishing that the Times and Telegraph in particular underplayed the story (and even more amazing that the Express didn’t bother with it at all).
I cannot help but wonder if racism was involved in editorial decision-making. Would those papers have treated this story in the same fashion if a black man had murdered nine white churchgoers?
Looking back also to December 2012, when the Sandy Hook school atrocity occurred, I recall that it dominated the front pages of every national, including the Telegraph, Times, Mail, Express and Star. Sure, it involved children, and the deaths of such “innocents” would guarantee splash status.
But surely the nine innocents of Charleston, South Carolina, merited more attention than some British newspaper editors granted them.
- This article was amended on June 19 to clarify the position of the stories in the Express and Star.