Sad! My best wishes to the store clerk and his family.

Karen

I Pray a speedy recover for the Clerk!

Is there a reason why the races of the suspects were not mentioned?

Especially odd since it was mentioned in the original story.

"The suspects are described as two black males, one about 30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, with medium build and a dark complexion. One suspect was last seen wearing a black hoodie with the hood up and jeans while the second was wearing a white hoodie with a white T-shirt and jeans, police said."

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/22/gunman-shoots-albany-cigarette-store-clerk-during-robbery/

We include race only if there is additional information that is specific enough to help make an identification. In one case, authorities included skin color, which is a much better indicator of appearance, and we published that: "The suspects are described as two males; one was about 30 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, with a medium build and a dark complexion."
The other suspect was simply described as being, as you said, black, with generic clothing. This is a circumstance where we do NOT feel the available description is actually aided by the inclusion of race.
Skin color is considered by many to be a much better descriptor, given the very wide range of people who can fall into any particular category.
In sum: We do not include race when the rest of the available description is so hazy that no accurate ID would be possible; our preference in all cases is to include skin color rather than race because it's a more accurate and specific identifier.
The CBS story, from what I can tell, is based on exactly the same wire service story that we got. There's nothing original about it. There are different standards for reporting, and I have shared mine.

"There are different standards for reporting, and I have shared mine."

And that says it all. Thank you for your transparency!

P.S. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Yeah, I figured you would appreciate that.

Let's say you knew it was "a black man" in blue jeans and a white shirt who was reported to be involved. What would you do with that information? Is that enough to identify the culprit, or simply lead to profiling and generalizing?
Many media outlets have this policy: Include race IF it's relevant and, in crime descriptions only if there's enough other detailed physical information to be pertinent.
I did not come up with this myself, but I appreciate that you felt comfortable sharing your difference of opinion.
There's a section toward the end of this story on (journalism training organization) Poynter.org that explains this well (http://bit.ly/rKs01W):
"Figuring out whether race is relevant in stories is hardly a new issue for mainstream media outlets, and many have developed related policies over the years.
Cleveland’s local newspaper, The Cleveland Advocate, doesn’t typically include race in crime stories."
....
The New York Times has a similar policy. It only includes race if it’s relevant to the story and if that relevance is made clear to the reader.
“We would mention race in a physical description only if it really is a detailed physical description that readers would learn something from,” said Philip Corbett, the Times associate managing editor for standards. “But if the description is a ‘white man in his 40s’ or ‘a black man in a hoodie,’ then you’re not really providing any useful information and it could be sort of boiler plate.”
***