General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsComparing How The New York Times Described Mike Brown & Ted Bundy
Below is a paragraph from the Times profile of Brown published on August 24, 2014. It is preceded by evidence that the teenager who was gunned down by police, unarmed, was grappling with and deepening his spiritual beliefs.
Now, contrast the above characterization of Brown with that of mass murderer Ted Bundy in a profile published just after the State of Florida executed him on January 24, 1989. The paragraphs below were preceded by gruesome details of Bundys lethal methodologies.
http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/08/29/comparing-how-the-new-york-times-described-mike-brown-ted-bundy/
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)No insult intended.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)In fact, a good amount of white conservatives believe that racism against whites is the problem.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's worth discussing, I never thought that it could become worse but I think it is getting worse.
Black v White was one thing, now the xenophobes are worried about Islamic folks, Guatemalans, everyone.
Fuck, we are rolling backwards.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Obviously, racism plays a big part in the different descriptions. But one must also note that Bundy was atypical of serial killers. Where most are low-intelligence or, at least, ill-educated, he was highly intelligent and well educated enough for his trial lawyer to mention that he (Bundy) would have made a good lawyer. Where most are crude, he was eloquent. Where most have clearly disturbed childhoods, his was relatively normal. I'm currently studying Forensic Psychology and one of the reasons Bundy is so remembered was that he was so unusual. Most are crude, vulgar, thuggish idiots, (mainly but not exclusively) men who come from dysfunctional backgrounds. Bundy was different. He was polite, urbane, well-spoken and came from a fairly normal background (or so it was thought at the time; later research has challenged this). He was intelligent and introspective enough to give us some valuable insights into the serial killer's psyche. There was nothing in his background that threw up warning signs which made his descent into being a brutal, sadistic murderer even more shocking.
I think we also need to talk about the poverty factor. Michael Brown came from a poor background, a situation of life that the chattering classes who write for newspapers and increasingly are the only people who read them, love to moralise about. Now, in the States, the discussion of poverty and the culture that develops in poverty is also tainted by the racial breakdown of those who live in poverty or are perceived to mostly make up the poverty stricken. It's possible that the two are inextricably entwined but I doubt it. The reason I doubt it is that here (the UK), there's much less of a racial element to teh discussion of poverty but the moralising remains much the same. The same assumptions of teh habits and failings of those living in poverty is made of the underclass on both sides of teh Atlantic.
Finally, I think there is a tendency in both our countries to assume (sometimes wrongly) that the cops are in the right. We, as a culture, put a lot of trust in law officers and we, as a culture, don't like accepting the possibility that they can be as flawed, bigoted and duplicitous as the next man. We like to think that coppers are the good guys, that they don't lie or mistreat people and that those who do are "bad apples" unreflective of the main (my brother-in-law, who just retired after 30 years on the force, would laugh his ass off at that assumption). That creates an inclination to give the cops the benefit of teh doubt and to assume mitigating circumstances even on occasions where they are clearly in teh wrong.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)posted by Cali_Democrat: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025405745