Thread by @equalityAlec

THREAD. Sometimes the bias of the New York Times is so outrageous that it surprises even me. Because what the NYT did yesterday in its election coverage is so dangerous, I try my best to analyze it carefully below.

On June 8, the day after the June 7 elections, the New York Times published a story telling its readers about what it called “the shifting winds on criminal justice”: nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/…

The NYT’s lengthy article and analysis is based entirely on two individual local races, the recall of the progressive DA in San Francisco, and the primary for the Mayor of Los Angeles. According to the NYT.

There is a lot of remarkable stuff about this story. But one thing stands out above all the rest: there were huge progressive criminal justice WINS in California on election night, and the NYT just ignores them. I honestly could not believe what I was reading.

Take a look at this thread to see the progressive “criminal justice” wins NYT erased. Incredibly, a paradigm tough-on-crime candidate ran a scorched earth campaign against progressive California AG, and got trounced in a statewide election. NYT? Ignored.

https://twitter.com/chloecockburn/status/1534667144004259840

But there is so much more. Right near San Francisco, in a county of over a million people, another progressive DA targeted by police unions and “tough on crime” Democrats won easily. NYT? Ignored.

https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/1534626160876720129

It gets worse, even Oakland's election results directly contradict the NYT, as a local journalist pointed out when comprehensively criticizing the New York Times article:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bedwardstiek/status/1534596145263300609

In fact, all over California and the country, continuing a multi-year trend, many progressive Democrats did very well (and a few didn’t) in elections about “criminal justice” issues. It’s astonishing that the New York Times doesn’t mention any of them.

So, what does NYT choose to cover? 1) Recall of SF DA where GOP billionaire flooded the race and created a giant mismatch; and 2) LA Mayoral race, in which a former GOP billionaire spent $41 million on the primary. He outspent opponent by 10:1 ratio, he still only received 40%!

But there was a fraud that isn’t as noticeable. NYT omitted that reform policies of SF DA were popular. Each of his major issues (not prosecuting kids, cash bail, wrongful convictions, worker protection, going after corrupt cops, and more) polled with big support:

When writing a story about unpopularity of the progressive platform, did the NYT reporter not know that the DA's major reform policies were widely popular or did the NYT reporter know it and choose to omit it? Doesn't popularity of policies bear on what Democrats should advocate?

Instead, using only these two local election-night results and ignoring all of the contrary evidence, NYT concocted a national story published at 5:00am the next morning about a reckoning for progressives and “shifting winds” on “criminal justice.”

It’s almost as if the article was already written before the election no matter what the results? Here is the NYT’s remarkable thesis: “The elections on Tuesday showed the extent to which the political winds have shifted even in Democratic cities.”

According to Meltwater, this article had a potential "reach" of 170 million people across platforms after it was given prominent front page placement right after the election. The message to them? Democrats have to MOVE RIGHT on crime.

The other NYT election-night piece was even worse. It was filled with racist, outlandish misinformation that I’ve debunked time and again. For example, property crime is DOWN in SF but NYT says property crime is “unchecked.” Same message: voters want Dems to move right on crime:

I don’t know what to say about a journalist and a group of editors who concoct this sweeping message by ignoring most of the evidence and most of the very elections they purport to be covering. How could this happen?

As always, when you see articles like this, ask yourself: Why is this particular angle news? How did it get to reporter and who pitched it? What is the goal of the article? How did they choose which voices to quote and which to ignore? Who benefits from framing issue this way?

Let’s take a look at the sources chosen by the reporter and editors, in chronological order:

-Centrist political consultant known for criticizing progressives
-“Strategists and leaders in both parties”
-Centrist former politician. (Same person quoted making joke about DA in last week’s NYT debacle.)
-Same guy again, making a joke pretending he doesn’t know AOC’s name.

-Pollster for Rick Caruso (billionarie, former Republican running for LA Mayor)
-Same guy again
-Real estate developer, advisor to former Republican Mayor, an LA police commissioner
-Same Caruso pollster (third time)
-Eric Adams Chief of Staff
-“Strategists in both parties”

-Head of super PAC for House Republicans (twice)
-Centrist Mayor of SF
-Recalled SF DA
-Jesse Jackson
-Anonymous Democratic Strategist
-Sean Patrick Maloney (lol)

These sources have political and business interests in promoting centrist, pro-police narratives. The article almost surgically excludes any other perspective, including the perspective of many progressive strategists and candidates who have won on exactly the opposite message.

Excludes those who believe, based on evidence, that attacking the root causes of inequality and violence by giving people better housing, care, working conditions, and schools is a more popular political strategy than fearmongering and pandering to police and developers.

Instead of quoting or listening to other voices, NYT mocks them. Without describing their nuanced, science-based views to readers, NYT calls anyone with different views the “activist left” and the “activist class.”

It even gives space, for the second time in a week, to an 88-year-old retired male politician to make a needless joke about a progressive leader, this time about “A.O.S. or A.O.C. or whatever that woman’s name is.”

As you read this, I want you to ask: Is this a reasonable attempt to give people actual information about what progressives believe? To educate people about different strategies from experts who disagree?  Is it a reasonable effort to educate the public about an issue?

B/c it doesn’t talk to anyone with different view, let alone explain them, NYT misleads public with straw-person arguments: “some voters demand action on racial and systemic disparities while others are focused on their own sense of safety in their homes and neighborhoods.”

See, according to NYT it’s an “either or” situation. The voters who care about systemic injustice aren’t “focused on” the safety of their neighborhood.

It’s hard to fathom a professional political journalist displaying less understanding of progressive principles (or, perhaps, more committed to misleading people about what real people on the left believe).

Does anyone believe that millions of poor people, Black people, young people, teachers, nurses, public health experts, faith leaders, crime survivors, etc. who are fighting against systemic injustice and inequality don’t care about “safety in their homes and neighborhoods”?

In fact, researchers are finding that it is exactly the neighborhoods with the most gun violence who most support progressive prosecutors.

https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1534358259062161410

Corporate media and centrists strategists did not have an article ready by 5:00am election morning about Philly DA’s re-election victory on a progressive platform against “tough on crime” challengers. When that election disrupted centrist narrative, it was swept under the rug.

Fifteen paragraphs into New York Times story, we are offered the disclaimer that “turnout was low” and that “there is always a risk of over-interpreting local races.” After that brief interlude, reporter gets right back to the main message: Democrats need to get tough on crime.

Twenty-three paragraphs into the piece, the New York Times treats readers to this gem:

This is a striking paragraph. It contradicts the (misleading) claim at the beginning of the piece that “rising crime” is the thing actually motivating centrist Democrats. (A claim later quietly deleted by NYT editors with no correction as I explain in my newsletter. LOL.)

Crime is a terrible measure of social harm, but “crime” as measured by police is actually near historic lows in the U.S., and many crimes that cops report aren’t even “rising” at all, as the NYT now admits in paragraph 23.

But, this isn’t an article about evidence. This is an article about what "strategists” say that people “sense.” I want to try to be as clear as I can about what’s really going on here:

In coming months, you will hear a lot from news media about how "fear of rising crime" means Dems need to boost police and prisons to be successful politically. A lot of “strategists” will be quoted. Elite corporate media will justify this as simply reporting how people “feel.”

Setting aside that people “feel” this way in large part because of relentless, misleading coverage of crime, there is a larger and more insidious problem: the media reports the centrist, corporate pivot to more police and punishment as a natural, reasonable response by Democrats.

Responding to "fear rising crime" with pivot to more punishment is like saying fear of climate change means that Democratic strategists are saying that people must donate to Exxon

One of the most important functions of copaganda is to treat more punishment as a reasonable solution to social problems. “Strategists” say we have to do it, even though the available scientific evidence says it won’t solve the problem b/c it has nothing to do with root causes.

The actual evidence is clear: real safety is the product not of the machinery of state violence, but comes from reducing inequality, giving people places to live, ensuring that people have access to care, and in investing in the ability of our children to play and to be educated.

One of the greatest frauds but most essential roles of modern "news" is selling people the wrong solutions to the wrong problems in order to prevent the reduction of inequality.

If you like this thread and my threads generally, you can read them in a much cleaner format with links by signing up to my newsletter. Here is the full version of this thread: equalityalec.substack.com/p/how-to-spin-…

As a reward for getting through this thread, here is a picture of one of my anti-copaganda cat friends trying to stop me from writing.

UPDATE: For at least the second time, the NYT has quietly altered and modified the article (without an official correction) to correct falsities and, now, to add an entirely new source. This thread was based on the original article.