BC CATEGORY PDFMAKERAPP GRAB THIS READWISEIO SAVE THREAD THREADER COMPILE SUMMARIZE

Alec Karakatsanis
@equalityAlec 1 year, 9 months ago 168 views

THREAD. I've been studying how the New York Times uses sources. If you look at many of its articles together, something disturbing emerges: NYT relies on police and corporate sources to subtly shape how we see social problems and solutions. I try my best to lay it out below.

First, some background. Reporters and editors are constantly making choices about who to speak with to get story ideas about what to cover, who to interview to describe a problem, who to interview to tell us about the universe of potential solutions.

Importantly, sources ultimately quoted in an article often played a vital role behind the scenes. Many people don’t realize that the people quoted in articles explaining what happened and what could be done about it are often the same people who brought the story to the reporter.

In this process, many reporters rely on police and allies (prosecutors, pro-police officials, punishment bureaucrats, consultants, and corporate profiteers) to decide which stories to cover and to tell us "the facts." But when you look across articles, the pattern is striking:

Let's take a look at a few examples from the New York Times. Here's one about "perceptions" of rising crime: https://t.co/8DussDKOQI

What do you notice?

\u201cPolice officials.\u201d
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Professor
\u201cthe Police department\u201d
\u201cthe police department\u201d
\u201cofficials\u201d
Chief of detectives
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) April 8, 2022

Here's one about a supposed "cascade" of shoplifting: https://t.co/3igtgiV3K6

-store owner
\u201claw enforcement officials and business owners\u201d
\u201cofficials\u201d
-NYPD
-\u201csome workers\u201d
-\u201claw enforcement officials.\u201d
-eric adams
-legislators
-business owners
-NYPD
-owner
-\u201cmany small business owners\u201d
-owner
-store worker
-DA
-Legal aid
-Store workers
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) February 28, 2022

Or this one concocting a panic over supposed theft from trains: https://t.co/yb1y2ASo7y

-\u201cAuthorities\u201d
-LAPD Captain
-\u201cThe police\u201d
-LAPD Captain (twice more)
-Railroad corporation (twice)
-Railroad corp. spokesperson
-Association of American Railroads
-LAPD Captain
-Asst. prof. of "marketing"
-Railroad corp.
-Railroad spokesperson
-DA
-LAPD Captain (5 more times)
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) January 22, 2022

Or this one shaping the narrative after the police killed a girl trying on a dress in a Burlington Coat Factory: https://t.co/ASVpBdJWZV

Here are the sources NYT chose to educate readers, in order:

-Spokesperson for cop union
-Lawyer for cop (humanizing, defending him)
-Person mentored by the cop
-New person mentored by the cop
-AG
-Professor (former cop)
-Lawyer for family
-Lawyer for cop (again, twice more)
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) January 4, 2022

What do these articles have in common? They empower government and corporate bureaucrats invested in massive investment in the profitable punishment bureaucracy as a solution to social harm as sources to tell us the story.

In article after article, 100s of times a month and 1000s of times during our adult lives, we are bombarded with a carefully curated selection of facts about the world. This cannot help but change our perception of reality. And people are invested in manipulating that reality.

So, whenever you read a news article, take a look at the sources the reporters and editors chose to present to readers to tell "the full story," in chronological order. Ask yourself these questions:

-Who benefits from their point of view being presented as news?

-Whose views were prioritized?
-Was anyone with an opposing viewpoint critical of the punishment bureaucracy included?
-How did the reporter choose which voices to quote and which to ignore?
-Where in the article were any sources challenging the narrative put forward?

-Which sources were granted anonymity and why?
-Did the reporter include any journalistic skepticism for claims made by police, or note whether the source has a history of dishonesty?

There are a lot of amazing journalists, including at major media outlets, who are intentional about the vital issue of who their sources are and who is allowed to shape public perceptions of what's important. But we must notice the implications of who controls news sources.

I've previously written about how what counts as news is one of the most important and overlooked issues in our society. Well, sources often determine what is news and what is said about it: https://t.co/eEB6mSvEcZ

If you want to read more about sources, with more analysis and lots more examples, I wrote it up in my free newsletter here. Also, I hope you like my paintings! https://t.co/CENjsr19cN

If you don't have time to read the entire article or thread, here is the conclusion about why this matters for all people who care about all forms of inequality and injustice:

This day was inevitable. Indian Muslims always lived in La La Land. They bad mouthed real well wishers & slept with the enemy who never considered them as part of them. In Gulf, Indian Muslims were busy with Javed Akhtar & Sonu Nigam. Never interacted with South Asian diaspora

Now when Indian Muslims are thrown to wolves it’s Pakistani & Bangladeshi Muslims with whom they kept distance are the only ones feeling their pain. None of the people who they invited for Eid Milan. Qawali & Mushaira are there for them. Such people invoke wrath upon themselves

Indian Muslims never spoke for Kashmiri Muslims. Distancing from separatist was understandable but we never even bothered to highlight their human rights violation & rapes carried out by forces. We could have sent them humanitarian help we didn’t. Our silence made us complicit.

When Sania Mirza married Shoaib Malik it was something legal. A Muslim married another Muslim. Entire Hindutva media went after her. They launched a witch-hunt for months. No Indian Muslim stood by her. All were silent. Now days come when Muslims are arrested for marrying a Hindu

Indian Muslims particularly the elite downplayed communalism in India by saying it will pass or Hindu majority is good. Fringe are bad. They misguiding others. Muslims were always others. Indians were happy to see Muslims sing & dance & eat their food but never considered as own

Phil Plait
@BadAstronomer

1/ Today is #BlackHoleFriday, an annual science outreach event that, by complete coincidence I’m sure, is done on #BlackFriday. You’ll read lots of cool stuff about black holes on the hashtag. Here’s mine.

2/ Black holes are weird. Duh. People like to think of them as something like incredibly dense nuggets of stuff that sucks other stuff in. But they’re not like that.

3/ If you squeeze enough mass into a small enough volume, the gravity gets so intense that it’s impossible to escape them *if you get too close*. From far away, though, gravitationally they more or less act like anything with that much mass.

4/ So if the Sun turns into a black hole we wouldn’t get drawn in. In fact, we’d orbit it almost exactly the same way as we do now, though we’d freeze to death pretty rapidly, which, in the end, would still kinda suck.

5/ Black holes get weird *when you get close*. Anything with mass warps space — we feel that warp as gravity! — but black holes stretch space to its limit.

Richard James
@RJSHutton

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.

One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018

Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

Kentaur Wolf2
@fragma_dia2

Хајде да направимо мали осврт на случај Мика Алексић .

Алексић је жртва енглеске освете преко Оливере Иванчић .
Мика је одбио да снима филм о блаћењу Срба и мењању историје Срба , иза целокупног пројекта стоји дипломатски кор Британаца у Београду и Оливера Иванчић

Оливера Илинчић је иначе мајка једне од његових ученица .
Која је претила да ће се осветити .

Мика се налази у притвору због наводних оптужби глумице Милене Радуловић да ју је наводно силовао човек од 70 година , са три бајпаса и извађеном простатом пре пет година

Иста персона је и обезбедила финансије за филм преко Беча а филм је требао да се бави животом Десанке Максимовић .
А сетите се и ко је иницирао да се Десанка Максимовић избаци из уџбеника и школства у Србији .

И тако уместо романсиране верзије Десанке Максимовић утицај Британаца

У Србији стави на пиједестал и да се Британци у Србији позитивно афирмишу како би се на тај начин усмерила будућност али и мењао ток историје .
Зато Мика са гнушањем и поносно одбија да снима такав филм тада и почиње хајка и претње која потиче из британских дипломатских кругова

Најгоре од свега што је то Мика Алексић изговорио у присуству високих дипломатских представника , а одговор је био да се све неће на томе завршити и да ће га то скупо коштати .
Нашта им је Мика рекао да је он свој живот проживео и да могу да му раде шта хоће и силно их извређао

THREAD. I've been studying how the New York Times uses sources. If you look at many of its articles together, something disturbing emerges: NYT relies on police and corporate sources to subtly shape how we see social problems and solutions. I try my best to lay it out below.

More from Category pdfmakerapp grab this readwiseio save thread threader compile summarize

You May Also Like