Guess we can stop suspecting dark-skinned males … for the moment

So everyone makes mistakes in the journalism biz. And when you're dealing with "sources" that are passing on what their "source" know, and there's time pressure to Make The Announcement First, then mistakes are more likely.

So I don't blame CNN all that much for blowing it that there had been an arrest made in the Boston bombing case. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought the info was credible enough to raise it for discussion.  Fair enough.

But this whole "dark-skinned" thing?  Horrible, horrible judgment. (Emphasis mine)

'At around 1 p.m. ET, CNN’s John King came on the air to say […] “I was told they have a breakthrough in the identification of the suspect, and I’m told — and I want to be very careful about this because people get very sensitive when you say these things — I was told by one of these sources who’s a law enforcement official that this was a dark-skinned male,” King reported. “The official used some other words, I’m going to repeat them until we get more information because of the sensitivities. There are some people who will take offense even in saying that. I’m making a personal judgment — forgive me — and I think it’s the right judgment not to try to inflame tensions,” he added.'

So King was aware that the words he was going to use might cause offense, might be sensitive, and he wanted to not "inflame tensions" … but he felt fine saying, based on one law enforcement official "source" that the suspect was a "dark-skinned male".

And what, precisely, did that add to public knowledge?  Was it an Islamic jihadist? An African-American nationalist? A Mexican illegal immigrant? A Puerto Rican liberation fighter? An Australian Aboriginal Assassin? A well-tanned vacationer just back from wintering in Florida? Barrack Obama?

Calling the suspect "dark-skinned" didn't tell us anything — but would certainly send all the usual suspects running around with still more baseless conversation.

Reporting on an arrest?  Fine. Reporting on a single-source, who used "other words" (and one wonders what that means), on something focused solely on the skin tone of the accused?  Doltish.