Unprovoked, senseless murder in NYC; killer on the loose; Post doesn't print his description

Two days ago in New York City a young couple were walking on the sidewalk after apartment hunting.  They walked past two men sitting on steps.

Moments later one of the men fatally stabbed George Carrol as his horrified wife looked on helplessly.

The killer fled.  

The next day the New York Post ran a story about the murder.

Now, with the killer still on the loose and the wife having witnessed the fatal attack at close range, you'd think an absolutely crucial part of the story would be for the fable-writer "reporter" to include a description of the killer, right?

For some reason the Post didn't think that was important enough to bother including a description.

The next day, the Post ran a followup.  Surely, I thought, by then some editor would have noticed the glaring omission from the first story and would have edited the story.  But still no description of the killer in the totally unprovoked attack.

Until a few years ago--2004 or so--newspaper stories about murders where the killer was still on the loose included a description, which often resulted in useful tips.  But I guess the "journalism schools" have decreed that helping the cops locate killers is no longer worthwhile.  Yeah, dat's probably it.  Cuz I can't imagine any other reason to refrain from printing a description.

Anyone have any info on the new stylebook?