<< News Scan | Main | Restoration of Honesty: Jeff Sessions' Charging Instructions >>


Editorials Impersonating News

| 0 Comments
The New York Times, more unabashedly than perhaps any other MSM outlet, is a cheerleader for less accountability for criminals.  It is, more specifically, a reliable shill for "sentencing reform"  --  which, it says (quoting only its usual stable of True Believers), continues to have "momentum" notwithstanding its wipe-out in Congress followed by Trump's election. 

The Times' "news" article is here. Actually, it's a poorly disguised editorial trying to sell itself as news.  (This apart from the fact that it isn't even new  --  it's a re-tread of exactly the same sentencing reform rah-rah we've been hearing for months).

I could do my same-old rebuttals to its same-old bolstering, but it would be tiring. Instead, I'll take just one paragraph and see how it might be re-cast by someone who'd like to see something closer to the truth.
The story's fourth paragraph is:

[Despite reform's victories in several states,], in Washington...the nation's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has charted the opposite course. He announced last week that federal prosecutors should aim to put more people in prison for longer periods, adopting the sort of mass-incarceration strategy that helped flood prisons during the war on drugs in the 1980s and 1990s.  His move -- which he said would promote consistency and respect for the law -- alarmed critics who feared that the Trump administration was embracing failed, even racist, policies.

Now let's take a look at that line-by-line, this time with a nod toward truthfulness:

[Despite reform's victories in several states,], in Washington...the nation's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has charted the opposite course. He announced last week that federal prosecutors should aim to put more people in prison...

Well, no. The Sessions charging policy says nothing about the number of prosecutions that will be brought.  It speaks only to how the cases that are filed should be charged.

...adopting the sort of mass-incarceration strategy that helped flood prisons during the war on drugs in the 1980s and 1990s. 

Which might more correctly read, "...adopting the sort of mass-crime reduction strategy that helped make the nation safer than it had been in 50 or 60 years, while Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush pursued successful, bi-partisan, anti-crime programs."

His move -- which he said would promote consistency and respect for the law...

Got that part right, thank you New York Times! 

...alarmed critics...

Yes, it's all true.  Critics tend to be alarmed by the things they're criticizing.  Is this what now passes for journalism?

...who feared that the Trump administration was embracing failed, even racist, policies.

Again, we see the (understandably unelaborated) term, "failed." 

Good grief.  Only in the minds of those who prefer the mass crime explosion of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties to the mass crime reduction of the Nineties through 2014 could so much more safety for so many more people be viewed as "failure." The truth is that, for a government that doesn't get all that much right, the startling reduction in crime was one of the most encouraging successes in the post WW II era.

And finally, did anyone think the NYT could get more than four paragraphs into a story before it smeared its opponents as racist?  I'd start in once more by noting that demographic disparity is a function of behavior, not of discrimination based on race (or age or sex).  But, as noted, putting up the truth about all this stuff has become as tiresome as reading the NYT's relentless lying.








Leave a comment

Monthly Archives