A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crime Out of Mind at the New York Times « Back to Story
Showing 11 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
There was, once upon a time, the New York City Housing Police Department, dedicated to the protection of the Housing Authority's property and tenants. Until Rudy consolidated them, and the Transit Police, into NYPD. One of the few things I might disagree with Rudy on. Full disclosure: my father retired from NYCHPD a long time ago.
Bravo ! Ms. Mac Donald
I raise my hat to you. You represent Journalism as it should be practiced but is not these days. The grey lady is a shabby lady.
Now for some good news: The NYTCo lost $40 million last year and $90 million in the most recent quarter. Time to hit up old Carlos Slim again, the man that the Business section is not allowed to cover. He may be a monopolist and the World's Richest Man, but he is NOT newsworthy.
Nobody reads the Times for crime news because it isn't fit to print, unless it is white-on-black. New Yorkers read the police blotter in the News or the Post. It is also covered by local TV news. And anyway, crime doesn't affect Times readers, only the poor and hapless tourists.
Mind-boggling, these lawyers are actively reducing the NYPD's ability to keep people safe. I've worked near a housing prooject, and the level of crime is always much higher than surrounding areas, except of course that a lot of that crime spills over into nearby areas. Disproportionate crime levels dictate disproportionate enforcement response.
You read this and simultaneously wring your hands and want to metaphorically wrong the neck of every reporter and editor at the New York Times. What are these people thinking?
I gave up on the New York Times years ago - for awhile I would get the Tuesday paper just to read the science section, but even that got way too political.
The point is this - the Times gave up on credible reporting years ago. If the Times claims something as a fact, you can't rely on that claim, since there is a political undercurrent in every word that's now in the paper. And while there is no way to avoid some bias, and no one wants or expects a bare recitation of facts, what goes on at the Times goes way beyond this, since the paper isn't above manipulating facts to serve political ends.
Ms. MacDonald describes a newspaper that long ago lost its most valuable commodity - credibility. I had been reading the Times practically since I could read, and year by year noticed that the paper was changing, so that for quite some time now it has hardly resembled what it was - an utterly spectacular newspaper, in a class by itself.
Who would have thought that the Times would be sacrificed for something as mundane as ideology or partisan politics, but the infection that started on its editorial page has now spread to the entire paper from the first page to the last. Those few instances when I go through the Times these days it is with disgust at how poorly the stories are written, how biased the coverage (even the photographs are chosen to present a point of view) has become, and how awful it now is.
In short, the Times used to be something special, but now it isn't much different from the other tabloids in New York. And, in some ways it is worse.
Ms Mac Donald's article wonderfully exemplifies just what has become of the Times. What appears is that the editorial page is working hand in glove with those reporting the news. Unfortunately that's not exactly unusual these days at the Times.
You have to really wonder at those who run the paper, and what benefit inures to the publication from being a crusader for the left. The changeover has comes not only at the cost of the paper's credibility, it also has destroyed the bottom line as those who disagree with the ever more strident tone of the paper - all of the paper - simply stop reading.
Why would those who run the paper press an ideological agenda at the cost of the bottom line? Especially at this time, when newspapers, including the Times (especially the Times) are fighting for existence?
It seems that it happens in every organization - a management team or individual comes along and makes decisions that lead to the destruction of something that took generations to build. Given its unique position the New York Times might have been able to weather the storm that is one by one destroying the newspaper industry. But under the inept management of its present leader, there is no chance of survival at the Times. Five years tops, then it will be all internet for the once great NY Times. And for what? For a CAUSE.
New York Times - In pace requiescat.
Hard to see what the talented Heather MacDonald suggests the New York Times should report instead. 99.9% of today’s news is pure entertainment and the Times caters to a target market who live on the upper west side and not within the housing projects. And this target market expects their news – or entertainment – slanted in a certain ideological direction, a direction which isn’t compatible with a get tough, law and order mindset.
Face basic facts, unless a rogue elephant is rampaging down your street, the Chinese are unloading armed troops in Chesapeake Bay or a hurricane is about to hit your Florida condo, most so-called news has no personal immediacy. It should entertain us however.
Just the dry facts and only the basic facts isn’t entertaining in the slightest and went out of favor before Disco died. And we give our journalists wide latitude in their quest to entertain us. Libel is hard, if not impossible, to legally prove, same goes for slander. We patiently allow reporters to invade our personal space with their cameras and microphones. Collectively, they act as modern day father confessors to our celebrities when apologizing for real or imagined sins. And as Torquemado-type inquisitors, they can and do ask the most personal and embarrassing questions when interviewing our High and Mighty. We expect our journalist-entertainers to lack personal integrity, to lack basic compassion or common decency and to avoid tactful questions unless their intended audience approves of the interviewee in which case tact is paramount.
The NFL doesn’t target middle aged matrons as their primary audience and the New York Times is no less invested in their bottom line audience. We don’t expect our street pimps to be caring, warm-hearted professionals so why should we hold our journalists to a higher standard?
The Black Community can't make up its mind. On one hand, it wants protection, but, on the other, whenever black males are arrested and incarcerated en masse accusations of racism and profiling abound. They can't have it both ways. If they are going to reflexively cry racism, then let them live in racial solidarity and enjoy the intimidation, menace, and random pointless violence that will surely accompany it. The police chief should tell them that if they don't want these young black thugs to be in prison, then they should be happy to remain prisoners in their own homes instead. We can lck the gangsters up or you can lock yourselves up. Take your pick and accept the consequences without complaint.
Hey at least they died healthy. With no transfats or mega gulps in their hands.
One shouldn't forget DA Johnson's wife, who is a Judge [in another part of town] with a reputation of her own . . . for cutting felons lose.
heather mcdonald makes botha look like the dali lama. maybe the angriest woman alive.
"The vast majority of Paul, Weiss’s partners lives in doorman buildings, if they live in the city at all. Why? Because they understand that trespassers are usually criminals. Were a Paul, Weiss partner to take up residence in a city housing project, he would either bring his own private doorman, or he would demand that the police provide some semblance of similar protection."
I think a proactive policy suggestion one could draw, if the above quoted point was seen to its logical conclusion, is that these buildings should have some type of sentry, door man, or guard instead of just keys and a buzzer.