1. “If a man is brutally stabbed to death in Boston, MA, and the attacker
happened to be from Pakistan, the fact he is from Pakistan is somewhat
relevant to the story.”

Not necessarily, and the Boston Globe would not report that the attacker is from Pakistan (although the name might give it away) unless the Pakistani origins were somehow relevant to the story. It would especially not mention it if the Pakistani was a permanent legal resident of the US, much less a citizen. A tabloid might, but this is a tabloid.

2. “Now, if we attempted to draw connections between is nationality and the MOTIVE behind the attack, that would be inappropriate.”

What? This is precisely when nationality is appropriate. If a Pakistani or Nica commits a crime that is apparently politically motivated, their nationality is newsworthy. It isn’t when the guy is only holding up a liquor store.

3. “Again, if nationality isn’t mentioned in an article, it is assumed the subjects are Tico.”

Well, you’ve just admitted it (although skirted the issue of accident victims–my original point–whose unreported nationality may not indicate that they are Tico). Nationality is only mentioned when the subjects aren’t Tico. How is this not xenophobic? Plus, you didn’t get around to saying how you determine nationality. I’m guessing that it is defined by country of birth, such that a Pakistani in the US will always be Pakistani.

On the other, tranquilo. I realize that you make phone calls and such, and don’t just translate what the Spanish-language press says, but I seriously doubt that you are immune to whatever stories other media are running. Nobody is. The NY Times looks at what the W Post publishes, and NPR reads both and then runs with its similar stories. It’s the way the business works.

The issue I’m raising, and gently I might add (this particular story is darn near irrelevant) is whether or not you are following the conventions of the Spanish-language press when it comes to gratuitously identifying the so-called nationality of criminal suspects. I think you do, in a way that would be rightly judged prejudicial in the US.

Want an example? How about the murdered gringo in your neck of the woods? You identified him as from the US. This was fine, since it had a bearing on the story and is relevant to the readers. But you identified his wife and attackers as Nicas. There was not a single fact in the stories that made the Nicaraguan origins of these people relevant, not one. What the hell message does this send to readers? It tells them to steer cleer of the Nicas.

Although the issues are subtle and there are lots of gray areas, I’m afraid that I’m right about this. Wish I weren’t. The good news for you is that ain’t nobody following this besides you and me, so there’s not much chance of anyone happening to agree with me. Even so, I do think you sometimes embrace the subtle xenophobic tendencies of the Spanish-language press here, which the Boston Globe would not do and nobody should.

You make it sound as though we rely on the local Spanish press and translate it.

Look at the way we write our headlines and stories and compare it to what the Spanish press reported – better yet, on stories involved actual crime. You will find that we are about the most impartial news outlet in this country regarding nationality – period. We report FAR more crimes committed by Ticos than by Nicas. Search our archives. (Again, if nationality isn’t mentioned in an article, it is assumed the subjects are Tico).

There is no agenda here. Just think of it in other context. If a man is brutally stabbed to death in Boston, MA, and the attacker happened to be from Pakistan, the fact he is from Pakistan is somewhat relevant to the story.

Now, if we attempted to draw connections between is nationality and the MOTIVE behind the attack, that would be inappropriate. Find me an instance of us doing that ICR.
We do our very best here to be impartial and accurate. Every newspaper and television station around the world (not just in CR) will mention the perp’s nationality if they are not from that country and commit a crime. It is not a xeno issue.

I assure you we don’t follow any CR “norms” in the way we do news here. I could give a $&@ less what the Spanish media reports, we report what we report based on facts that we were able to obtain.

And it is a prejudice. I am old enough to remember when blacks were were labeled “negros” in crime stories in the US, as well as when that changed. The routine mention of national origins in CR crime stories has the same prejudicial effect, and I don’t care if it is legal.

Plus, context is important, extremely so. How many Germans are there in CR and how much anti-German prejudice is there? It’s of no importance whether a German is identified as such. To argue that identifying a German is the same as identifying a Nica in a crime story is like saying that a US newspaper identifying a person as Brittish is equivalent to identifying them as negro. It isn’t, because the historical context of prejudice is different.

As for identifying US citizens, well, that would be especially relevant to readers of an English-speaking paper, most of whom are from the US. It might also be relevant to the Spanish-language press if the story had to do with tourism or something along those lines. My sense is that the local Spanish-language press overdoes this identification of US citizens, and betrays its xenophobia when doing so, but it is often pertinent to the story, Plus, again, US citizens don’t have the same experience of prejudice that the Nicas have in CR, which makes the context and therefore the editorial judgment different.

Meanwhile, who is a Costa Rican? I seriously doubt that Nicas with permanent legal residency in CR qualify, and suspect that when it comes to crime reporting, they are still identified as Nicaraguan. It would be an interesting question whether a Nica who obtained CR citizenship would still be identified as Nica in a crime story. I bet he would, although I suspect the reporter would somehow work in the fact that he became a citizen.

What’s going on here is sometimes called a “master status,” or one that dominates all others, and in the case of Nicas, that master status is negative. When it is used gratuitously, as it often is in news stories (but apparently not in accident stories) it is pure prejudice. The press doesn’t after all identify blacks as blacks or Jews as Jews and so forth when these facts aren’t relevant to the story, so why does it persist in identifying Nicas as Nicas?

It’s you’re show and you can direct it as you choose, but I think that following the prejudicial conventions of CR journalism is a mistake.

In both cases you could be wrong. Identifying information of the victim was not immediately provided by the OIJ, which almost always is at the request of the victims’ families.

So what I meant to say is that neither of your assumptions is likely correct (“none of the above”).

“Assuming” that it was either a Tico or a Nica or a Gringo or anyone else is exactly that, an assumption, so your hypothesis that it is not mentioned as a result of nationality is baseless, hence my statement “none of the above.”

The OIJ did not immediately release identifying information on this accident victim, I would assume at the request of the family, whom are (almost) always informed of the death prior to a press release being distributed, if their identity can be established.

Those arrested on suspicion of a crime are afforded no such protection.