Paternalism again and again. Deciding + controlling what information is accessible/ what the public can “handle” instead of presenting objective fact and allowing readers to form their own opinion
Committing the sin of omission. Great move from an alleged news organization. I don't care about the headshots. I do care about the alleged killer's writings. I also care about sloppy "journalism" and being patronized. *sigh
Pandora's Box. He cracked the lid. There is so much at play and it will gain momentum. Methinks the genie won't go back in the bottle. We live in fascinating times, grim though they may be.
I swear it’s an occidental issue at this point. Peeps in charge treat us like we’re so fucking stupid??? We can’t possibly understand what they know or what they’re doing. At least have some respect 😭
America's lapdog news media serve as propaganda outlets on behalf of our military-industrial complex, making each of these decisions by the NYT unfortunately predictable. Any guesses as to which (if any) government agencies have their fingers on the Times' pulse?
That's part of a sad pattern at the Times, which finally published concerns about the co-optation of police body cameras nearly a decade after I & other advocates raised them, at a point in time when greater transparency could have made a difference. https://shahidbuttar.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-shows-upa-decade
One final piece worth noting here is that Mr. Mangione is both telegenic and also something of a class traitor, having grown up in a wealthy family. Allowing him to be widely seen by the public runs the risk of him turning into the kind of martyr that Wall Street's propagandists have tried to make Thompson into. To that extent, I would not be surprised if other news outlets followed the Times' lead, or that of whoever is whispering in the ears of its editors. (which again invites my question concluding the first paragraph above....)
Why do the big news outlets allow videos of police brutality, as it might cause some people to lose respect for the police. Apparently it is "all the news that is fit in our estimation to not have a bad effect on our readers" instead of "all the news that's fit to print" but even that makes one wonder what is meant by the word "fit".
What is so frightening about this murder, and not something that excuses it, is it is an indictment of and threat to wealth and power, something always sure to terrify mainstream media which is a creature of wealth and power.
Before people started recording & circulating videos of police brutality with their phones the news media often were hesitant to circulate videos of police brutality.
“If we show his face it will inspire copycat crime” is an interesting position to take. Especially given that it’s not a standard routinely applied to sex offenders or violent criminals. As you point out, nobody had a problem with plastering Khalid Sheikh Mohammed‘s face all over the place
What I think they’re really saying, and I don’t think this is profound on my part, is that they don’t show the faces of anyone who might garner public sympathy or support
Could they be concerned about contagion and copycat effects, which are supported by research? (This research is on mass shooters, but the principles extend to other kinds of public murder.)
Kind of off-topic, but since it isn't totally non-germane, I highly recommend the book Matt Kennard put out originally about 10 years ago and which has been recently updated.
Don't buy from Amazon, but that was the easiest link I could find. Like Ken, Matt was initially working for high profile and universally acclaimed mainstream outlets and what we all call the "legacy media" but slowly became disgusted. This book is an excellent primer for all things US capitalism and "empire" not the least of which what's happened to our health care system, corporate primacy, and what occurs when *PEACEFUL* local or indigenous activists attempt to change the policies when (western/US) finance capital get involved in other countries.
Ken, this is why I subscribe to you. The work you do assumes citizens are adults who can read and reason. I very much appreciate that dignity you allow people.
Also, just a curious question. I've started learning how to spot which journalists the security state likes to use. What I wonder is how these journalists feel when they find out they were used and given lies to print? Do they know they are lies beforehand?
Paternalism again and again. Deciding + controlling what information is accessible/ what the public can “handle” instead of presenting objective fact and allowing readers to form their own opinion
Committing the sin of omission. Great move from an alleged news organization. I don't care about the headshots. I do care about the alleged killer's writings. I also care about sloppy "journalism" and being patronized. *sigh
Additionally "the banality of evil" comes to mind.
Pandora's Box. He cracked the lid. There is so much at play and it will gain momentum. Methinks the genie won't go back in the bottle. We live in fascinating times, grim though they may be.
~Sarcasm Alert~ So glad the NYT is keeping me safe from seeing an alleged murder who is not a foreign terrorist! Bless its heart!
I hate being treated like I’m stupid. It’s bad enough when the government does it, but the media have become an extension of the government.
I swear it’s an occidental issue at this point. Peeps in charge treat us like we’re so fucking stupid??? We can’t possibly understand what they know or what they’re doing. At least have some respect 😭
America's lapdog news media serve as propaganda outlets on behalf of our military-industrial complex, making each of these decisions by the NYT unfortunately predictable. Any guesses as to which (if any) government agencies have their fingers on the Times' pulse?
Many forget how (whatever passes for) professional "journalism" has fueled the rise of fascism in the U.S. https://shahidbuttar.substack.com/p/journalism-has-fueled-the-rise-of
The Times, in particular, has an especially egregious history here, having swung the 2004 election for Bush. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13pubed.html
That's part of a sad pattern at the Times, which finally published concerns about the co-optation of police body cameras nearly a decade after I & other advocates raised them, at a point in time when greater transparency could have made a difference. https://shahidbuttar.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-shows-upa-decade
One final piece worth noting here is that Mr. Mangione is both telegenic and also something of a class traitor, having grown up in a wealthy family. Allowing him to be widely seen by the public runs the risk of him turning into the kind of martyr that Wall Street's propagandists have tried to make Thompson into. To that extent, I would not be surprised if other news outlets followed the Times' lead, or that of whoever is whispering in the ears of its editors. (which again invites my question concluding the first paragraph above....)
Why do the big news outlets allow videos of police brutality, as it might cause some people to lose respect for the police. Apparently it is "all the news that is fit in our estimation to not have a bad effect on our readers" instead of "all the news that's fit to print" but even that makes one wonder what is meant by the word "fit".
What is so frightening about this murder, and not something that excuses it, is it is an indictment of and threat to wealth and power, something always sure to terrify mainstream media which is a creature of wealth and power.
Before people started recording & circulating videos of police brutality with their phones the news media often were hesitant to circulate videos of police brutality.
Are they going to stop publishing images of Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant now that they’ve been indicted for war crimes?
“If we show his face it will inspire copycat crime” is an interesting position to take. Especially given that it’s not a standard routinely applied to sex offenders or violent criminals. As you point out, nobody had a problem with plastering Khalid Sheikh Mohammed‘s face all over the place
What I think they’re really saying, and I don’t think this is profound on my part, is that they don’t show the faces of anyone who might garner public sympathy or support
That CEO was simply a US mega-gangster….
“…photographs and words might have the effect of "amplifying the crime and inspiring others,"
Kinda makes you wonder just who the NYT thinks their readership is.
Thanks, Ken for knowing and trusting who your readers are.
Awesome work, Ken! ❤️
Could they be concerned about contagion and copycat effects, which are supported by research? (This research is on mass shooters, but the principles extend to other kinds of public murder.)
https://live-journalists-resource.pantheonsite.io/politics-and-government/mass-shooters-suicide-bombers-journalism/
Above all else, the ruling class protects itself.
The NYTimes is serving its actual clients—the elites.
Kind of off-topic, but since it isn't totally non-germane, I highly recommend the book Matt Kennard put out originally about 10 years ago and which has been recently updated.
https://www.amazon.com/Racket-Rogue-Reporter-American-Empire/dp/1350422711#
Don't buy from Amazon, but that was the easiest link I could find. Like Ken, Matt was initially working for high profile and universally acclaimed mainstream outlets and what we all call the "legacy media" but slowly became disgusted. This book is an excellent primer for all things US capitalism and "empire" not the least of which what's happened to our health care system, corporate primacy, and what occurs when *PEACEFUL* local or indigenous activists attempt to change the policies when (western/US) finance capital get involved in other countries.
Thanks for the book tip. I bought it from Amazon because I prefer Kindle books.
Ken, this is why I subscribe to you. The work you do assumes citizens are adults who can read and reason. I very much appreciate that dignity you allow people.
Also, just a curious question. I've started learning how to spot which journalists the security state likes to use. What I wonder is how these journalists feel when they find out they were used and given lies to print? Do they know they are lies beforehand?