In fact their seems to be no outrage that the race of the victims was mentioned. Suggesting the AP write that the victims were shot “in a car” (rather than BMW) suggests the story should announce that “3 human beings we killed in a motorized vehicle from wounds inflicted by little pieces of metal in an area near a place of learning on the planet earth.” Details are what make a story.

Additionally, why are we complaining at all they the writer tried to make the story sound more interesting? The whole point of journalism is to sell papers and drive traffic to websites to sell advertising. Journalists never tell facts, they spin them through their presentation of facts, the quotes they choose to use, and the adjectives they select. That’s why we have media labels such as liberal, conservative, mainstream, independent, etc. They tell the “same” story from a different angle and with a different bias.

So, Risling should be fired because he mentioned the car’s make earlier in the story than some other news stories you read, and because he quoted a source who you disagree with? That’s pretty weak.

As for Bao, like I said in the other comment, she’s a journalism student. There’s no way she “didn’t know” about this rule.

Or, to put it another way, would you be cool with your private emails being published without your permission? No? Then you shouldn’t be OK with this.

There is no reason, journalistic or otherwise, to publish the emails verbatim. If Bao wanted to expose the story, she could just as easily have done so paraphrasing the emails and not naming a specific source.