Voices: Social media zero in on bias after #CharlestonShooting

One hundred and forty characters isn't nearly enough to unravel the politics of mass violence, to expound on America's history of institutionalized racism, or to dissect the inconsistencies perceived in the way we talk about both.

But it's more than enough to make us pause. It's more than enough for a collective vent. And after Dylann Roof, who is white, allegedly opened fire Wednesday in a South Carolina church and killed nine black people, Twitter users exploded over what they saw as disparities in attitude and language the news media use to categorize violence.

The thesis of many was clear: White privilege persists, even in the coverage of heinous crimes. Users lamented that when a suspect is black, they're often labeled a "thug" or a "gangster." When they're Muslim, they're stamped a "terrorist." When they're white. they're afforded the far more benign pathology of "troubled" or "mentally ill."

This conversation has been percolating over the past year as racially charged incident after racially charged incident led to eruptions on Twitter. On Thursday, users eviscerated the press on what they perceived as bias in covering them.

They aren't necessarily wrong. But media experts say they aren't entirely right.

Some journalists do assign labels prematurely. But the complex ecosystem in which we now consume news has made it increasingly difficult to determine who is a journalist, and therefore should be held to journalistic standards, and who is a commentator, who isn't held to any of them.

The tweet below is one iteration of the thesis:

When Kelly McBride, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute, was read the above tweet, she said she could understand the frustration.

"There's so little that we really know, which means we need to stick to description rather than assumption, and all of those words are based on assumption," she said.

Some in the media have assumed wrongly before. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Some outlets suggested it was the handiwork of Middle Eastern terrorists. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists, but they were white and homegrown.

Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, said while historically there is plenty to criticize in the representation of race in the media, he thinks journalists today are circumspect about incorrectly assigning labels.

"My impression is that the media is very careful about casting racially charged aspersions without evidence," Gitlin said.

Which brings us to the other issue at play.

McBride said while not all journalists are avoiding assumptions as they should, most are. Complicating the situation she said, is the fact that many of the people who are misusing words and assigning labels — on social media and especially on cable news — aren't journalists at all.

The ecosystem we consume our news in has gotten very messy. What's hard, she said, is for "average citizens to know who is truly a journalist and who isn't."

On cable, especially, there's a legion of talking heads. Experts with agendas. Guests who are invited on specifically to pontificate. McBride said it's incumbent on networks to be transparent about who is who.

The conversation about race is always about labels. When we're having it, it's paramount we know who's wearing the label of "journalist."

Alia E. Dastagir is a mobile/social editor at USA TODAY. Follow her @alia_e.