Andrew Sullivan linked to this story and I'm glad I read it. Media narrative-building is great for generating subscriptions and page views, but generally speaking it's terrible for an informed public — especially when issues of crime, gun violence, race, and police intersect.
Maybe the most egregious example of this was the legacy media's coverage of the New York subway shootings in April. The New York Times withheld critical information about the shooter while a citywide manhunt was underway, and later attempted to spin his hateful internet rants as being anti-black. A black mass shooting suspect just wasn't part of the narrative the Times is selling its readers, and therefore critical aspects of the story had to be omitted.
A similar dynamic is playing out in Harlem, where Jose Alba, a 61 year-old Dominican immigrant, used a knife to ward off an attack by a black assailant, Austin Simon. There is extensive video evidence to support Alba's claim of self-defense — he was pushed into a corner and menaced repeatedly before reaching for the knife that saved his life. The Times, of course, has made a concerted effort in its news coverage to portray his Simon as the true victim in the encounter. (Not that anyone is buying their spin this time.)
I've learned there is almost always "more to the story" in these racial police encounters and first accounts are almost always inaccurate. It works both ways though. In 2014 when Michael Brown was shot by police in Ferguson, MO, it seemed a straightforward case of kid robs store, resists arrest, cop shoots him during a struggle. What we learned later is that the police had been harassing the neighborhood for years, creating a climate ripe for a confrontation that would get out of hand. Later with George Floyd, we learned that police departments often assign their problem officers to patrol minority neighborhoods, again increasing the likelihood of a confrontation. I agree with Chris's take on Richardson's piece but just saying we may learn more about the situation in time.
Including these facts, if true, provoke a nuanced response. That’s important in our country where gray (always the case) promotes something closer to truth, tolerance, and understanding. Forever optimist, JD
Excellent and important points! Thank you for having the courage and taking the time to make them in this piece. I find it scary how few people catch this all-to-common sleight of hand being used these days.
Chris, I just found you via Andrew Sullivan. I have been reading Dr. Richardson's newsletter for about a year, but not daily. I know that hers is the most popular substack and followed religiously by a couple of people I know.
Sadly what I have found again and again is that Dr. Richardson loves to pour on the sins of omissions when it suits her: I have noticed her not mentioning relevant details too many times for it to be an infrequent thing.
I enjoy the historical details she provides. But I wonder, Is that history also being presented with dollops of sins of commission and sins of omission to make the political ends that Dr. Richardson wishes to be?
Basically sums up my thoughts on every article or video on pretty much everything nowadays. I don't know how we got to the point of not thinking or questioning anything, but it's certainly not leading us down a good path. Then on top of it, if you disagree with any narrative that's been "approved" you're silenced instead of just being presented evidence that you're wrong. I like your idea of buying land in the middle of nowhere, but maybe Elon's right and we gotta get even further away! Anyways, thanks for sharing you're opinion - even if I disagreed with it, I'd try to politely and respectfully present you with arguments against it. Here's hoping there are others that do that too!
Andrew Sullivan linked to this story and I'm glad I read it. Media narrative-building is great for generating subscriptions and page views, but generally speaking it's terrible for an informed public — especially when issues of crime, gun violence, race, and police intersect.
Maybe the most egregious example of this was the legacy media's coverage of the New York subway shootings in April. The New York Times withheld critical information about the shooter while a citywide manhunt was underway, and later attempted to spin his hateful internet rants as being anti-black. A black mass shooting suspect just wasn't part of the narrative the Times is selling its readers, and therefore critical aspects of the story had to be omitted.
A similar dynamic is playing out in Harlem, where Jose Alba, a 61 year-old Dominican immigrant, used a knife to ward off an attack by a black assailant, Austin Simon. There is extensive video evidence to support Alba's claim of self-defense — he was pushed into a corner and menaced repeatedly before reaching for the knife that saved his life. The Times, of course, has made a concerted effort in its news coverage to portray his Simon as the true victim in the encounter. (Not that anyone is buying their spin this time.)
I've learned there is almost always "more to the story" in these racial police encounters and first accounts are almost always inaccurate. It works both ways though. In 2014 when Michael Brown was shot by police in Ferguson, MO, it seemed a straightforward case of kid robs store, resists arrest, cop shoots him during a struggle. What we learned later is that the police had been harassing the neighborhood for years, creating a climate ripe for a confrontation that would get out of hand. Later with George Floyd, we learned that police departments often assign their problem officers to patrol minority neighborhoods, again increasing the likelihood of a confrontation. I agree with Chris's take on Richardson's piece but just saying we may learn more about the situation in time.
Including these facts, if true, provoke a nuanced response. That’s important in our country where gray (always the case) promotes something closer to truth, tolerance, and understanding. Forever optimist, JD
Excellent and important points! Thank you for having the courage and taking the time to make them in this piece. I find it scary how few people catch this all-to-common sleight of hand being used these days.
Chris, I just found you via Andrew Sullivan. I have been reading Dr. Richardson's newsletter for about a year, but not daily. I know that hers is the most popular substack and followed religiously by a couple of people I know.
Sadly what I have found again and again is that Dr. Richardson loves to pour on the sins of omissions when it suits her: I have noticed her not mentioning relevant details too many times for it to be an infrequent thing.
I enjoy the historical details she provides. But I wonder, Is that history also being presented with dollops of sins of commission and sins of omission to make the political ends that Dr. Richardson wishes to be?
Thank you for being another level headed voice out there Chris 🙏
Points well put Chris.
Justice and truth are elusise targets at the best of times.
Hard to keep 'eyes wide open' all the time.
Basically sums up my thoughts on every article or video on pretty much everything nowadays. I don't know how we got to the point of not thinking or questioning anything, but it's certainly not leading us down a good path. Then on top of it, if you disagree with any narrative that's been "approved" you're silenced instead of just being presented evidence that you're wrong. I like your idea of buying land in the middle of nowhere, but maybe Elon's right and we gotta get even further away! Anyways, thanks for sharing you're opinion - even if I disagreed with it, I'd try to politely and respectfully present you with arguments against it. Here's hoping there are others that do that too!