1/This month on #AmericaInBlackBET, we collaborated w/@propublica to shed light on the Black Amputation Epidemic -- Black Americans are 2-3x more likely to get major amputations than white Americans -- and highlight a doctor saving limbs and lives
2/ Instead of undertaking efforts to restore blood flow, research shows that doctors disproportionately recommend that their Black patients undergo amputations -- a drastic, irreversible step.
3/ Studies show that up to 80% of people who undergo a major amputation will die within 5 years.
In Mississippi, we spoke with Dr. Foluso Fakorede, an Interventional Cardiologist fighting to prevent amputations and educate the community.
4/ Dr. Fakorede says he sees far too many Black patients suffering from high rates of high blood pressure, clogged arteries, and diabetes. As a result, wounds on the feet and legs don’t heal, which lead to infection and, possibly, amputations.
Denise Harvey told us her story.
5/ “We have a system, again, that is designed to get the results it gets,” Dr. Fakorede said. “We spend a lot of money on amputations, but less money on preventative strategies to prevent those amputations like diabetes.”
6/ Dr. Fakorede opened a clinic where he provides medical interventions – opening arteries, restoring blood flow and hopefully preventing amputations before it’s too late.
7/ Dr. Fakorede says there have to be fundamental shifts in American healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid need to pay for screenings that would catch vascular issues early enough that limbs can be saved.
8/ This reporting, produced by @ashorland, builds on @lizziepresser's enlightening piece for @propublica about the Black amputation Epidemic. Learn more about her deep dive below:
American journalism has been stuck in a circular debate about "objectivity" while our industry - and our democracy - die.
It's time to move on.
But to do so, the journalistic establishment must recognize critiques for what they actually are. cjr.org/analysis/a-tes…
I've been asked to write this piece, or something like it, a number of times since my initial NYT op-ed in 2020. I've resisted in part because I find this entire "debate" exhausting. But I finally hit my limit with having my arguments completely misstated by bad faith actors
The election of a black president and the nativist, undemocratic backlash it prompted provided a generational test of the news. Too often, we failed that test. One of the ways we did so was by prioritizing our marketing -- the way we are *perceived* -- over journalistic values
FBI released part of its file on NBA great Bill Russell today (some of this had been previously reported and released). A short thread on that's in there vault.fbi.gov/william-russel…
FBI file was opened in 1971, as part of an investigation into the Black Panther Party - federal officials claimed in order to probe Russell's connection with BPP leaders
First they pulled /put on file his passport and biographical information
unless i’m missing something: an hour after the former president announces he believes he’s being arrested next week, I’m not seeing any mention of it on WaPo, NYT or WSJ homepages. Not a criticism, but definitely interested in knowing if that’s a deliberate decision
(could also just be a saturday AM staffing thing)
this is helpful contextualization via reporting in the NYT
a major risk in indicting Trump has always been that there are millions of people who (baselessly) believe him the country’s legitimate leader and millions more who see him as the head of their movement - portion of whom have shown they are willing to attempt a coup if he asks
In the context of January 6, I think it is impossible to read Trump’s statement this morning as anything other than a call for political violence - I hope that, unlike in the run-up to January 6, our institutions (law enforcement, media) treat it as such
in anticipation of the right wing media “we collected tweets that we will now frame in bad faith” roundup - I’m not “predicting” violence. What actually happens remains to be seen. And also, the context and implication of his call to “protest” here is clear
it’s chilling and gross for the top editors of the New York Times to threaten to suspend or fire journalists for exercising their First Amendment rights by critiquing coverage. Antithetical to what one would imagine would be core, sacrosanct values: free speech and public debate
A newsroom, like any workplace, aims to create an environment where everyone feels safe and supported. And also: if you work the NYT you are publishing in the most powerful media outlet in the world. Critiques of the work should not just be expected, they should be welcome
one of the *only* ways that powerful media institutions have been compelled to improve coverage of minority groups in the past has been through collective action by journalists from groups. There are decades of precedent for journalists critiquing coverage they find harmful
there's a reality v perception dynamic at the heart of this (like w/"objectivity"). Comments from NYT make it clear their concern is whether *someone * *could argue* that it *seems* like reporters aren't independent of outside activists - not that they actually aren't independent
these debates, framed by the journalistic establishment as being about sacrosanct values are more often actually about marketing and public relations -- about capitalism. Telling the truth can be bad for the brand! "Republicans buy newspapers, too!"