So @nytimes has a front page article about Monday’s NYC attack on an elderly Asian woman. The video has since gone viral. The race of the perpetrator isn’t mentioned in the entire article. (He’s black). If a white man had conducted the beating it would have led the story.
Yesterday NYC police were asking for help in locating the suspect. The article actually mentions this, BUT DOESN’T DESCRIBE THE SUSPECT. The paper actively chose not to describe the man wanted for a hate crime despite the fact that NYC police were seeking help from the public. 
How does this happen? I can’t imagine a front page story with FOUR BYLINED WRITERS just forgot to mention the race of the suspect or share his identifying details as NYC police had requested. This is shameful & pathetic journalism @nytimes. It’s not the truth, it’s your agenda.
This is the most basic factual information that any story about this incident should contain. And @nytimes actively suppressed it from their article. Because it didn’t fit their narrative. I’d love to hear who made this decision & how it serves readers & subscribers. (I am both).
Some of you will say, “Why do you subscribe to @nytimes?” The answer is for the same reason I subscribe to the @WSJ & @washingtonpost because I want to be able to read — and examine — all perspectives on national stories. I don’t want to be in a perpetual echo chamber.
Final thought: yes, I’m old school, I still read print newspapers. Why? Exposes me to stories tech algorithms might not put in front of me online. I’d encourage others to do the same, especially younger people who only get fed the same types of stories all day long online.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
