This is an entire “news” article merely allowing San Jose police to repeat false talking points about “bail reform” in ways that are contrary to the scientific evidence about public health and safety and contrary to centuries of law. abc7news.com/san-jose-stree…
It could be news that the mayor and police chief of a major US city are caught misleading the public for political benefit, but instead this local reporter acts as their stenographer. Shameful.
Here is a thread with actual information in it about the issue:
Here is the (also bad) Fox story on the case. This example of following basic laws is not an important news story, other than reporters just printing police press releases. But, unlike ABC, Fox at least quoted another perspective criticizing the cops: ktvu.com/news/homicide-…
This dangerous piece with no contrary perspectives was “reported” by @DustinABC7. It’s shameful stuff, and an embarrassment to local journalists working hard to actually provide objective, helpful coverage about trump world.
this should have said "about the world," but i suppose the autocorrect to "trump" is fitting for this kind of evidence-free anti-science fearmongering from @DustinABC7. Let's see if he's open to doing another story with community voices who have views consistent with evidence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD. On Monday the New York Times let a reporter do something dishonest and unethical. It's important to unpack what happened.
First, background: NYT published an article about 2024 NYC crime rates, which went down significantly, including most important/reliable crime stat: murder. But NYT did something I call "the old switcheroo" in my Copaganda book.
In the above headline and in the very first paragraph, the paper emphasized assaults and rape as having increased, even though the crimes it most fearmongered about for years (murder, robbery, shootings, burglary, theft, etc.) went down a lot. But that's when things get weird.
Thread. The Atlantic reporter below reveals a particular kind of ignorance that is common among liberal people but important to see clearly.
His post is ludicrous in other ways many have pointed out: (1) role of U.S. media, gov, and corporate institutions is such that **this** genocide could have been/could be ended asap. (2) It's weird during genocide to criticize someone for not calling out other genocides.
Can you imagine choosing that your role as a journalist in an ongoing genocide funded and armed by the U.S. and repeatedly supported by your own magazine is to try to increase the social costs on those who are trying to get the attention of the world to stop it? It's depraved.
THREAD. There is a group of reporters at the New York Times who are intent on peddling copaganda whatever the consequences. The paper's Christmas Day crime article was one for the ages. It's a smorgasbord of propaganda tactics that I've covered, with some amusing new flourishes.
The premise is that New Mexico has a maverick Democratic governor who is fighting against all odds to expand policing, prosecution, and prisons. She's doing this, we are told, out of a genuine, laudable commitment to being "tough on crime" because she cares about our safety.
The villains in the article? Other Democrats in New Mexico who have dared to question (based on mountains of evidence) whether more police, prosecutors, and prisons will help address problems of housing, medical care, inequality, precarity, and safety. Enter the New York Times.
Thread. The New York Times coverage of the police search for the killer of the health insurance CEO is getting weird. One aspect of it is pretty dark.
A key feature of copaganda is that police and the news media attempt to use crises to increase the size, power, and profit of the punishment and surveillance bureaucracies. This has long been one of the creepiest things about it. They don’t let a good crisis go to waste.
In today’s fawning tribute to the NYPD’s surveillance system, the paper celebrates surveillance and even laments that New York does not have enough. That’s the thrust of the entire article.
Thread. A new video of Chicago police brazenly shooting someone who had done nothing wrong at all raises some interesting and under-discussed issues.
First, here's a link to the video. Absolutely incredible that this happened--the police had no basis whatsoever to even stop this person outside his own home, let alone shoot him. abc7chicago.com/post/video-rel…
Most importantly: After they murdered Laquan McDonald and covered it up for years until journalists forced the video's release, Chicago police learned an important and underappreciated lesson: controlling the video helps police either suppress or foment virality.
THREAD. One of the moments that changed my career was my first day as a public defender in D.C.'s juvenile court. When I walked into the courtroom, which is closed to the public, all the little children were fully shackled in metal chains on their wrists, waists, and feet.
I saw 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds, children with intellectual disabilities, children who had suffered profound abuse--all shackled for hours. But what shocked me most: no one had objected in years. The government officials had become desensitized to everyday brutality.
I asked the judge what she would have done if she came home from a concert and found that the babysitter had shackled her children to a table for hours. She'd probably prosecute the babysitter for child cruelty. Indiscriminate child-shackling is clearly unconstitutional.