On the one hand, identifying him as an ex-con reinforces the idea that ex-cons are good people and not just bad people roaming free. On the other hand, representing a people by a person can cut both ways as a double-edged sword of representation, so accepting this also means accepting things like "ex-con still villain, obviously".
The only reason they reported on it is because he's a black ex-con on his way to a job interview. This happened three years ago. Why is it making the rounds suddenly?
Because only in the last year or two have we ratcheted offense and grievance from an 8 to a 9.5.
OK, so they say "ex con" in the headline. That gives more info in less space than giving his name. The headline is SUPPOSED to draw you in to read the article. Did they not mention the name in the article? Of course they did. But yeah, if you only skim headlines you'll miss important details.
Racism? I'll bet that they'd have made the same headline/tagline on a white ex-con as well. But then the offense seekers would say "Oh, you have to point out that a white guy is an 'ex con' because you just assume all Black men are."
OK, so they say "ex con" in the headline. That gives more info in less space than giving his name. The headline is SUPPOSED to draw you in to read the article. Did they not mention the name in the article? Of course they did. But yeah, if you only skim headlines you'll miss important details.
Racism? I'll bet that they'd have made the same headline/tagline on a white ex-con as well. But then the offense seekers would say "Oh, you have to point out that a white guy is an 'ex con' because you just assume all Black men are."