HELPFULLY, DONALD AND HIS BOTS TICK EVERY BOX:

Absent any consensus, journalists ought to clarify which meaning they're using in a particular article. But even when explicitly grappling with the appropriateness of using "racist" in coverage, journalists often make no attempt to do so.

Among the definitions that may come to mind for readers when they see the term:

A belief in the innate inferiority of a racial group.

Animus directed at someone due to their racial identity.

Denying equal treatment to a racial group.

Any action, law, policy, or institution that disproportionately harms a racial group.

Prejudging members of a racial group or failing to treat them as individuals.

Any of the above applied to ethnic, religious, or national origin groups, too.

Any of the above plus power over members of the target group.

This free-for-all makes it difficult if not impossible for everyone to be on the same page. And the lack of clarity is vexing for those of us who believe that rigor ought to be the lodestar in determining whether to use "racist" in a given instance.

Tweet   @brothersjudd