Thread by @equalityAlec

THREAD: Yesterday, the New York Times published a headline it knew was false. The implications of this are dangerous for everyone who cares about an informed public. Here’s what happened:

The NYT wrote another pro-police propaganda piece that had all of the usual problems I’ve discussed before (more on that below). But the editors chose to add a headline that stated that “murders ‘doubled overnight’” in the Bronx, New York. Here’s where it gets devious.

Notice that NYT editors chose to put the “doubled overnight” in quotes. Why? It's a signal they aren’t reporting it as a verified fact, but as a quote from a source. In the article body, we learn they are quoting a former cop turned local professor. Here it gets more devious.

In the article body, it’s not “murders” that the former-cop expert is saying “doubled overnight.” He is actually claiming that police (detective) “caseloads” doubled overnight. nytimes.com/2021/11/26/nyr…

Let me note here that this “expert” is wrong. It isn’t true that caseloads “literally doubled overnight.” NYT didn’t quote an opposing expert, show stats, tell readers that the person they quoted was wrong (it’s verifiable with some reporting), or disclose he was a former cop.

The NYT even let this former police officer “expert” add “That’s the unfortunate truth.” (It’s not the truth.)

Here it gets worse. See the sleight of hand? NYT editors took the (false) "caseloads" quote, put it in quotes, and then put it in the headline as applying to “murders”! They did this b/c a larger number of people will see the headline. They did it to create clicks and outrage.

It’s all false. Murders didn’t “double overnight.” Not even close, as others have noted. The NYT editors knew that, hence putting it in quotations so they could deny making the assertion themselves.

https://twitter.com/chloecockburn/status/1464367227453513732

Note that the insertion of the quotes, the easily available homicide data that NYT has itself reported on before, and the many people pointing out the lie make it clear that editors chose to print this falsity intentionally, and it's still up online and twitter a day later.

As an aside, the "expert" point about caseloads was also silly. It's an NYPD choice to devote smaller numbers of cops to serious crimes, and most cops to arresting very poor people for drugs and minor stuff. 96% of all police time nationwide is on what cops call "non-violent."

The rest of the article is outrageous. Here are the “expert” sources it quotes, supposedly to help explain what’s happening.

1)Police lieutenant
2)“the police say” generically
3)Former cop (undisclosed)
4)Former cop (undisclosed)
5)Police lieutenant
6)That’s it.

The article is copaganda. Without contrary views, experts, civil liberties advocates, crime survivors who disagree, etc., article lets cops call for more surveillance in most surveilled communities: “the police say some of the city’s most dangerous pockets do not have enough.”

But what do the mostly poor, mostly people of color who’ve been organizing across NYC against NYPD’s expanded and profitable corporate military-contractor surveillance programs think? We aren’t told, because the NYT chooses to leave out their voice. That’s an editorial choice.

It gets worse. NYT then lets anonymous “police” spew a discredited police union talking point that these issues are caused by new laws requiring sharing of basic info with defense lawyers to bring NY state in line with rest of the country (e.g. Texas) and the Constitution.

That claim is garbage @AliWatkins. It’s astonishing that NYT lets anonymous police sources blame this on basic discovery laws that exist across the country and are a basic component of truth in trials. There is no evidence to support it, and no contrary point of view printed.

Even worse, NYT then lets a lieutenant blame poor communities of color for not cooperating with cops! Laughably, lieutenant blames a lack of desire to work with cops on due process “discovery laws” not on decades of corruption/brutality /ineffectiveness in making people safe.

NYT editors chose not to print a contrary point of view to explain why poor communities might not like cooperating with the largest and most racially discriminatory human caging bureaucracy in modern world history that many believe has not kept them safe but made them less safe.

This is part of at least three broader patterns. First, the NYT has a long and disturbing recent history of copaganda.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1442548021921681413

Second, corporate news in general often disproportionately covers and creates a sense of urgency about certain kinds of “crime,” but does not create the same urgency around objectively larger threats to public health and safety.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1464270507310727171

Third, when it does cover a narrow range of “crime,” NYT often links problems to police talking points: need for more cops/weapons/surveillance/human caging. This link is profitable to corporations, but it’s like climate denial given the available science.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1422949466986921991

There are many wonderful journalists working to shed light on the great issues of our time, like the things that threaten our survival as a species and that make society less safe/just. But this threatens that work by boosting police repression and reducing trust in the media.

UPDATE: Here is a (profanity laden) tirade by the ex-cop professor quoted in the NYT piece confirming that the headline is false. The headline is still up even though yesterday the person quoted said publicly he was misquoted. Great work by @jbenmenachem

https://twitter.com/PeterMoskos/status/1464355423289585670

UPDATE: The @nytimes has now changed the headline to remove the false claim. Will be interesting to see if paper issues a correction explaining who made the decision to print the knowingly false claim, how the decision was made, and why.

UPDATE: the former police officer turned professor who NYT chose to quote has now blocked me for some reason (I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him online or otherwise). Here’s a screenshot of the relevant portion of his tirade where he agrees the headline is false.

UPDATE: others have pointed out that I missed another blatant pro-police lie in the NYT article: that NYPD had been solving 90% of murders. Again, public data is easily accessible.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justwongisms/status/1464711675681165319

NYT reporter repeated false claims on twitter. So far the paper has issued no explanation of how this could happen and what kinds of accountability there will be. This stuff matters, esp to those who will be targeted if the cops quoted get what they want.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/1464714130833608712

UPDATE: nyt reporter @AliWatkins has not corrected the tweets about this. I've commented on this reporter's bias before, but at this point, we need to understand from the editors how this is allowed to continue. Here is a piece I hope they grapple with: thenation.com/article/societ…