The NYT Decides "Objectivity" Requires Fairness Toward The Moral Views Of Psychopaths
A young black man spent three years in jail awaiting trial for a crime he did not commit. Is there a man or woman alive who would not call that "injustice"? What if most of that time he was subjected to psychological torture? You'd have to be a psychopath to call that "ustice".
Apparently, the New York Times thinks that journalistic objectivity means it can't distinguish between the equally valid interpretations of the sane and the psychopath. Note the use of the word "perceived" in the sub-headline below*:
Man Held at Rikers for 3 Years Without Trial Commits Suicide
Kalief Browder, who spent most of his time in solitary confinement after being accused of stealing a backpack, became a symbol of perceived injustice.
Perceived? Perceived? What is wrong with you people? And why did this death not merit attention at the time it happened, five fucking years ago? The first time "Kalief Browder" appeared in the New York Times was this "piece" in October 2014:
What’s on TV Wednesday
By KATHRYN SHATTUCKOCT. 8, 2014
7 A.M. (CUNY) BRIANLEHRER.TV Jennifer Gonnerman, a contributor to The New Yorker, discusses “Before the Law,” her article about Kalief Browder, a Bronx teenager who was accused of taking a backpack — a crime he has denied committing — and locked up without trial at Rikers Island for nearly three years. In “Eldridge & Co.,” at 9, Sam Roberts, a domestic correspondent for The New York Times, talks about his new book, “A History of New York in 101 Objects.” And in “City Talk,” at 9:30, the filmmaker Heather Quinlan (“If These Knishes Could Talk”) ponders her latest subject, the 1986 Mets.
What does make it into the New York Times? See that film mentioned above, the hard-hitting documentary "If These Knishes Could Talk"? That, my friend, that did make the New York Times.
*It looks like this particular sub-headline was particular to the mobile version of the NYT. The sub-head on the web is different.