The New York Times called Michael Brown "no angel." Here's how it described serial killers.

[decocker 7,198]

The New York Times's description of Michael Brown as "no angel" has prompted a swift, critical reaction from other media outlets, including Vox, and various people on social media.

Alison Mitchell, national editor for the Times, defended the term in conversations with the Washington Post's Erik Wemple:

"It comes out of the opening scene," says Mitchell, who notes that "like many teenagers," Brown was indeed "no angel." Okay, but would the New York Times have chosen this term — which is commonly used to describe miscreants and thugs — if the victim had been white? Mitchell: "I think, actually, we have a nuanced story about the young man and if it had been a white young man in the same exact situation, if that’s where our reporting took us, we would have written it in the same way." When asked whether she thought that "no angel" was a loaded term in this context, Mitchell said she didn't believe it was. "The story ... talks about both problems and promise," she notes.

The Times's response has done little to calm the storm. Sean McElwee, research assistant at Demos, dug into the archives to compare the Times's description of Brown to the newspaper's previous descriptions of serial killers and terrorists. Of course, comparing articles produced decades apart by different writers and editors isn't an exact science. But it does lend context to the widespread frustration over how young black men are portrayed in the media.

examples in the link

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/25/6066343/new-york-times-michael-brown-no-angel

[Teddy B 17,252]

"It comes out of the opening scene," says Mitchell, who notes that "like many teenagers," Brown was indeed "no angel." Okay, but would the New York Times have chosen this term — which is commonly used to describe miscreants and thugs — if the victim had been white?

If you look long and hard enough to find something, you'll eventually find it.

[decocker 7,198]

If you look long and hard enough to find something, you'll eventually find it.

you don't have to look long and hard to see something is amiss.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

If you look long and hard enough to find something, you'll eventually find it.

Yep, confirmation bias.

[Teddy B 17,252]

you don't have to look long and hard to see something is amiss.

Correct. But I believe in this case we differ on what is amiss.

[decocker 7,198]

Correct. But I believe in this case we differ on what is amiss.

people see what they want. you got that much right.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Actually it does bring up a poignant issue about how people are portrayed in the media. IMO, none of us are angels.There was no reason to lead off with such a statement.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yep, confirmation bias.

Meh.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Actually it does bring up a poignant issue about how people are portrayed in the media. IMO, none of us are angels.There was no reason to lead off with such a statement.

They didn't lead off with that. See how people get all mad about things they didn't actually read?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=0

Here is the story. It starts with a story about him seeing an angel in the clouds and calling his dad about it. Then it leads to the human aspect of the kid, who, like all people, is not perfect (tying in the angel story from before). I think addressing that he, like all people, is not perfect helps to humanize him, because stories about how he is either totally bad or totally perfect cannot be true or real.

[Teddy B 17,252]

They didn't lead off with that. See how people get all mad about things they didn't actually read?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=0

Here is the story. It starts with a story about him seeing an angel in the clouds and calling his dad about it. Then it leads to the human aspect of the kid, who, like all people, is not perfect (tying in the angel story from before). I think addressing that he, like all people, is not perfect helps to humanize him, because stories about how he is either totally bad or totally perfect cannot be true or real.

Did I misread your reply to me above?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Did I misread your reply to me above?

Idk, I was agreeing with you.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Idk, I was agreeing with you.

Ah, my apology. I read it the opposite way that you were agreeing with the notion of confirmation bias in the story that Brown was no angel was due to his being black.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Teddy B

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Ah, my apology. I read it the opposite way that you were agreeing with the notion of confirmation bias in the story that Brown was no angel.

No, I was saying that people start out believing something, and then they look for signs that what they believe is true. And in most instances, signs can be found. Then they overinflate the meaning of those signs, or misread them, or ignore the signs to the contrary, because they have predetermined that what they "know" is the right thing.

We see this on this forum every day. People having strong feelings about things they don't actually understand, just that it gets them riled up because it feeds on whatever they think it is about.

So, the one sentence in question was not the opening sentence. Thats one. Two, it discounts the rest of the story and focus on two words instead of assessing the meaning of the story as a whole.

I think vox or whoever is doing the tweets just wants to stick it to the NYT and get a story that people will click on, so that they will get clicks and ads or whatever. I don't think it's intellectually honest.

[decocker 7,198]

I think vox or whoever is doing the tweets just wants to stick it to the NYT and get a story that people will click on, so that they will get clicks and ads or whatever. I don't think it's intellectually honest.

vox is more open content and opinion than anything else. and maybe they only post stories to 'stick it to nyt' but that seems a bit dismissive for my taste. i mean, yeah i went into reading this article knowing that certain outlets discredit the victim first and foremost in these sorts of cases, knowing that their readership will repeat their hype. rap music, weed, and scary black man. that's the recipe. it obviously works.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

vox is more open content and opinion than anything else. and maybe they only post stories to 'stick it to nyt' but that seems a bit dismissive for my taste. i mean, yeah i went into reading this article knowing that certain outlets discredit the victim first and foremost in these sorts of cases, knowing that their readership will repeat their hype. rap music, weed, and scary black man. that's the recipe. it obviously works.

Right, but I don't think NYT did it in this case and I don't think they do it in most cases. I think whoever jumped on it did so because NYT isn't a normal offender. Whereas if it were Fox news, this "expose" of their tactics wouldn't be news.