Thread by @equalityAlec

Thread. This week, the New York Times's recent dangerous reporting on "crime" reached a new low. I try to document what happened carefully below, because what happens to the leading newspaper in the U.S. has effects on how we all get information about the world.

The NYT just published an article blaming nationwide corporate consolidation at Walgreens on a supposed wave of shoplifting by the poor in San Francisco. nytimes.com/2021/10/13/us/…

As you read, ask yourself: who determined that this Walgreens press release blaming shoplifters for corporate consolidation should be a NYT story, and why did they chose to tell the story the way they did?

"All the news that's fit to print."

Before I start, know that the entire NYT article is based on a lie: in fact, shoplifting in SF is *way down.* But NYT parrots corporate propaganda blaming shoplifting by the poor when store closures was a plan to extract cash for investors. Great thread:

https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1449468819714428929

Also know that this is a pattern at the NYT. Several months ago, the NYT *Bureau Chief* for SF was caught lying about this very issue. He then suggested to readers that the cause of a fabricated shoplifting wave was more lenient prison sentences.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1396662991731429378

NYT let their *Bureau Chief* spew what is the criminological equivalent of climate denial. The most well-researched and documented fact in all of the scientific criminological literature is that neither jail sentences nor longer sentences reduce "crime."

https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1447598365252874240

Now, to the most recent NYT article. Here are the sources in it, in order:

1. "Authorities"
2. Walgreens corp.
3. "Law enforcement officials."
4. Walgreens corp.
5. Politician
6. Walgreens corp.
7. DA
8. Cop source defers to Walgreens
9. Cops
10. Lawyer for indigent shoplifter

Notice that there is not a single source in the article who even suggests that its entire premise might be false, or a researcher who studies these issues, or one of the many experts who has already examined Walgreen's public claims, or an expert on crime data.

Another thing to notice: the NYT runs an entire article on shoplifting in downtown SF, one of the most unequal stretches of land in the history of modern human civilizations, and does not talk about poverty, wealth inequality, divestment from social services, healthcare, etc.

(Side note: SF cops and the NYT have learned that they can't blame shoplifting on "homeless people" anymore b/c it sounds bad. So now, with no evidence, and contrary to the truth, they say shoplifting by mostly very poor people is "organized crime.")

If you spend even a few weeks in criminal court in San Francisco, you'll see that most shoplifting is done by desperate people and is the result of poverty, mental illness, and drug addiction. It's mostly not the mafia, and it's not stuff cops and cages can fix.

Another thing to notice: The NYT does not regularly publish breathless stories about the "wave" of wage theft by corporations, which costs poor people orders of magnitude more money than all shoplifting from companies combined.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1410263490313531393

This captures one of the persistent biases in the NYT: it treats nearly every story on "crime" as a story about police and cages, and not structural violence, inequality, addiction, mental health, and the things that *evidence* shows are actually relevant.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1436054227323850755

A couple weeks ago, I explained in more detail some of the recent patterns of reporting on "crime" and police in the paper, and some of the conflicts of interest editors have permitted.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1442548020118097921

Then, last week, the NYT published another pro-police article filled with egregiously misleading reporting and material omissions.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1447207380702441480

It is my hope that a more full public discussion of these flaws, biases, and lack of evidence--and their connection to rising spending on cops/prisons and divestment from human beings--can lead to a more intellectually honest and rigorous media discourse.

For those asking me, I have reached out to the NYT reporter @gettinviggy (as I always do) to open a dialogue about how his article came to be and to articulate these and other criticisms more fully and in a constructive way.