THREAD. I noticed something fascinating: many of the reporters concocting the new hysteria over "retail theft" are using the *exact same* words and patterns in each story. It's pretty wild. Let's take a look:
Let's use today's dangerous @chicagotribune article as an example. First thing to notice: who does the newspaper choose to use as sources? Here they are in chronological order: chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bi…
1. CEO of local retail lobby 2. National Retail Federation 3. Police 4. CEO of state retail lobby (5 paras!) 5. CEO of World Business Chicago 6. Pres. of restaurant lobby 7. CEO of Illnois Hotel lobby (7 paras!) 8. New hotel CEO (6 paras!) 9. CEO from earlier (7 more paras!)
Does this look familiar? Check out the sources in the very similar recent @AP article about "brazen" San Francisco "retail theft."
I cannot stress this enough: when you see articles like this, ask yourself: Why is this news? How did it get to the reporters? What is the goal of the article? How did they choose which voices to quote and which to ignore? Who benefits?
Next, did you notice that this article continues the pattern of the same exact words and phrases as other similar recent articles across outlets?
"brazen"
"organized crime"
"flash mob"
"smash and grab."
How is this happening?
One thing that many casual news readers don't know is that articles, and the specific words used in them, are often carefully crafted by expensive corporate marketing consultants. It's something wealthy business groups pay a lot of money for.
There is a big marketing industry for corporations and cops that teaches them to use the same words and phrases when they pitch journalists. It's not a coincidence that different journalists are all using same words, and those words were carefully chosen by wealthy people.
This is intentional, and it subtly changes the way we think. For example, the slick phrase "smash and grab" is pure marketing. It's vague, scary, and hard to fact check. Such theft is likely close to 0% of retail thefts, but it's all we're talking about. What does it even mean?
The result of all of this is a public massively distracted from far more important issues. Did you know that these same corporations engage in wage theft every day that dwarf all other property crime combined? Read this whole thread:
We must help each other become more critical consumers of the news, and we must hold journalists accountable for the role they are playing in scaring the public into deeply destructive human caging policies that crush poor people.
UPDATE: it’s especially interesting to compare the breathless Chicago tribune reporting with actual facts:
I hope the reporter @RobertChannick will publicly explain how he got this story idea. Who came to you? What was the pitch? Why did you decide it was “news,” and how did you decide on the sources you chose? It’s important to have these discussions publicly.
If you want more depth, I’ve written a longer piece about the massive and profitable bureaucracy behind these narratives, using hundreds of examples. yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-puni…
UPDATE: I'm wondering why @RobertChannick didn't mention same retail sources have ongoing federal lobbying campaign re:"brazen" theft. Many poor people will be caged b/c of the hysteria reporters are stoking, all collateral damage for a corporate campaign?
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.
THREAD. Something important is happening in U.S. media that I think is getting insufficient attention, and the controversy around the Los Angeles Times refusing to endorse Kamala Harris amidst her support of an ongoing genocide gets at it.
As background, a lot of uproar ensued in mainstream media circles after @nikasoonshiong’s thread stated that she supported the decision of the paper owned by her father to refuse to endorse Harris and adding that, for her, genocide is a red line:
The mainstream media is, absurdly, attempting to equate WaPo’s refusal to endorse Harris with LA Times, even though they were done for different reasons. Subscriber numbers show normal people get that, with WaPo losing far more readers. Reasons matter: