I fail to see how this decision in 1946 is relevant. Its clear you are just pushing a narrative and reaching way, way, way into the past to try and sell it.
Way into the past? The rule is still in place today.
I'm totally lost, because I can't see why this rule is a problem. It seems logical to only include a subjects race, only when race is relevant to the article.
And if the NYT only deemed race relevant when the perpetrator was Black and victim was White, filling the pages with "Black kills White", and never the reverse, would you see the problem then?