The New York Times' subtle fearmongering might be worse than the trashiest tabloids
Did anyone stop to ask if crime is on the rise, which the NYT takes as a given?
This week, the New York Times penned a thoughtful, measured editorial weighing in on Mayor Eric Adams’ plan to fight violent crime.
The paper of record applauds the Mayor’s pledge to invest in youth programs and cautions against undoing bail reform. Trying 16-year-olds in adult court for gun possession, the editorial board scolds, “should be
a nonstarter.”
It’s all very reasonable. And it’s also framed in a misleading way that might be more harmful than the trashy fear-mongering of Fox News and the Post. The headline reads, “The Right Way to Stop Rising Crime in New York.” This should come as a surprise to NYPD statisticians, whose reports have indicated for over a year now that almost all serious crime declined since 2020.
“For the month of November 2021, the number of murders declined in New York City compared with November 2020: Murder decreased by 17.2% (24 v. 29) for the month. Sustained declines in murders drove murders down, year-to-date through November, by 0.5% (434 v. 436) compared with the same period last year,” the report reads.
Burglary is also down. Robberies and assaults have gone up, a pattern that tracks with loosening Covid-19 restrictions (e.g. you’re more likely to get robbed walking around than if you’re trapped in your apartment all day).
In External Processing, economist John Roman explains why the pandemic may have fueled violent crime, even as other crime, like robbery, fell. “Dense clusters of young men stuck at home with little to do carrying the burden of past trauma, knowing those with whom they hold deep grudges are close by and home too,” he writes.
Suppose that in normal times, these young men were home half the time and out and working some, or in school some, or just out, the other half. If this is also true of their enemies, then the chance that both are home at once is small, maybe 1 in 4. With a 25% chance, you are both around at the same time, the search costs for finding your target are high. Now suppose the pandemic forces you both home three-fourths of the time. Now the chance you are both home about doubles. Suppose during the most intense period of closures, you are home 90% of the time and your enemy is too. Now the chance that they are home when you are home and looking for them has more than tripled. It’s easy to see why there would be more deadly encounters.
But nowhere does the NYT editorial mention the pandemic. They don’t question whether it’s wise to cement any tough on crime measures to combat a phenomenon likely linked to the (we hope) fading pandemic.
“Jump-out boys”
The NYPD press release also notes that officers intercepted a record number of guns in 2021. “New York City’s Police officers made 334 gun arrests for the month of November, bringing the total number of gun arrests in 2021 to 4,144. This is a 7.8% increase compared to 3,844 gun arrests year-to-date through November 2020. This represents the largest number of year-to-date gun arrests since 1995.”
Adams has promised to reinstate the controversial plainclothes unit, officers who wear civilian clothing to avoid detection. It’s his main strategy to get guns off the streets.
“The jump-out boys,” a retired NYPD commander told me, referring to their tendency to surprise suspects, leading to dangerous encounters because often people don’t realize they’re dealing with police and so might think they’re being attacked and fight back.
Plainclothes officers have been behind a number of high profile killings: Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amitou Diallo. In the past, they’ve been accused of excessive force, assault, false arrests, framing people, framing people for gun possession, and racist stop-and-frisks.
Yet, the paper doesn’t question whether the plainclothes unit is needed, given the record number of guns confiscated by uniformed NYPD. They feebly ask for more information about how Adams plans to hold them accountable and prevent abuses. So far, all he’s said is he plans to outfit them with body worn cameras, even though most studies show that body worn cameras don’t substantially change officer behavior.
In a statement, a group of public defenders explained why a new plainclothes unit is a bad idea.
Reinstating the NYPD’s Anti-Crime Unit without also addressing the culture and policies that drove that unit’s decades-long pattern of harassment and violence targeting Black and brown New Yorkers is a mistake. Today’s announcement gives the community members who live with the legacy of hyper-aggressive policing no comfort that Mayor Adams’s Anti-Crime Unit will be different from its predecessors. The Mayor must focus on addressing long standing problems with NYPD’s culture of impunity before he doubles down on strategies that will only perpetuate the harms of that culture.
The NYT op-ed concludes, “With new leadership at City Hall, in Albany and at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, New York has an opportunity to get this right. A weary city is waiting.”
The city may be weary, because several recent killings are the stuff of urban nightmares. Michelle Go’s horrid death. The fatal shooting of a young cop. A little girl hit by a wayward bullet. But the measured, sober, reasonable, “adult-in-the-room” NYT might want to pull apart public perception and statistical reality, not conflate them and amplify fears. I’ll rewrite the headline:
“The Right Way to Combat Crime—Even As It Declines” That reframe would naturally shift the tone of the article. They could still applaud an investment in youth programs, but more strongly question whether we need tough on crime measures at a time the city’s jails are war zones.
If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead, though.
Once again a great article on calling out the misleading way that most major publications & media portray & slant their reporting in order to capture what they feel the public “wants” rather than the total picture , as is done here.
Amongst other things, I agree that “body worn cameras don’t substantially change officer behavior” they only tend to capture the behaviour (if they are turned on or the video is even made public). What’s the point in capturing a police killing on camera?? It’s too late by then. Isn’t/shouldn’t the end goal be to de-escalate the scenario to try & avoid a shooting altogether? More training is needed overall.