New York Times’ defense of Michael Brown “no angel” piece completely misses the point

After its profile of Brown sparked outrage, paper says it'd treat white victim the same. Here's what it's missing

Topics: michael brown, darren wilson, New York Times, Racism, false neutrality, Bias, Trayvon Martin, white privilege, Roxane Gay, bad feminist, Renisha McBride, George Zimmerman, Media Criticism, Editor's Picks,

New York Times' defense of Michael Brown "no angel" piece completely misses the pointAn image of Michael Brown is seen on a tie worn by his father, at the Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis, Missouri, August 25, 2014. (Credit: Reuters/Adrees Latif)

The New York Times packaged its profiles of Darren Wilson and Michael Brown as “Two Lives at Crossroads in Ferguson.” The stories are situated side by side on the homepage, and each features a a small, blurry photo of its subject. They share a nearly identical word count. They are, by all appearances, supposed to do the same work. To help us understand something about the lives and histories of a white cop and a young black kid whose names will forever be entwined. But Wilson is alive. Brown is dead. Nothing for these two can ever be the same.

We don’t learn much about Wilson’s teen years in his profile. He was an unremarkable hockey player, his mother was convicted of stealing and forgery while he was still quite young. We have no idea if he was rebellious at home or fought with his parents. We don’t know whom he hung out with, or what kinds of photos may exist of him at parties from that time. But such details hardly seem relevant. Ten long years separate Wilson from who he was in high school and the man he is today.

But Brown is dead, and the dead don’t change. His profile includes anecdotes about a spiritual awakening and a “rebellious streak.” Brown “occasionally smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, according to friends.” He “was not the best student,” but was also committed to graduating on time and taking classes at a local technical college. He was “no angel,” we’re told.

One response here is to point out that you’d be hard-pressed to find an 18-year-old “angel” — or an angel at any age, for that matter. To note how much we change as we enter adulthood — and the great tragedy of Brown being robbed of that opportunity to grow — is a fair but ultimately inadequate point. Brown is just the latest in a long line of black youth to be posthumously scrutinized for evidence that they caused their own deaths. It’s unspoken in the piece, but the Wilson profile encourages the reader to question what in this man’s history could  have led him to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who had his hands raised in surrender. By framing Brown’s profile as a companion piece to Wilson’s, the Times encourages the reader to perform the same calculus once again. This time, the question becomes, How did this unarmed black teenager find himself in the path of Wilson’s bullets?



The Times profile of Brown, even if this was not the intent, is part of a body of journalism that vets “good” and “bad” victims, a treatment generally reserved for dead black and brown young people and victims of sexual assault. In fact, while reading it, I couldn’t help but think of another piece the Times ran about a brutal gang rape that occurred in 2011. According to that piece, “some said” the victim — an 11-year-old girl — “dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s.” The reader is also informed that this little girl “would hang out with teenage boys at a playground.”

This information is inserted in the most neutral way imaginable, as though it’s just creating a full picture of the moment and circumstances that preceded the rape. The chosen details of Brown’s history are delivered just as innocuously. But there is no neutral in a culture that presumes black criminality and women’s share of blame in sexual assault, and the selected framing of each piece prompts the reader to imagine how these details could make each victim complicit in violence committed against them. If this little girl had dressed differently, perhaps she wouldn’t have been sexually assaulted by a group of men. If Brown had been an above average student about to leave for a four-year college, maybe Wilson wouldn’t have looked at him and immediately seen a threat. Maybe things could have been different.

These are the questions we see raised time and again. Lawyers for Theodore Wafer wanted jurors to review photos of Renisha McBride posing with money and what appeared to be drugs during the trial to establish why their client, upon find a 19-year-old black teen on his doorstep, couldn’t be blamed for shooting her through a locked door. Repeatedly we were asked to question why Trayvon Martin had his hoodie up that night. To wonder why he didn’t submit to George Zimmerman. Why did that little girl hang out with teenagers at the playground? Didn’t she know that kind of thing sends the wrong message?

All too often, the media fails to give teens like Brown, McBride and Martin the kind of humanity and sympathy it affords others. Roxane Gay, in an essay on the vast differences in how the media wrote about Trayvon Martin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — perhaps most typified by a strong, nuanced Rolling Stone piece on Tsarnaev by Janet Reitman — writes:

Reitman’s article is a solid piece of journalism. It reveals complex truths about the life of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Imagine, though, if Rolling Stone had dedicated more than eleven thousand words and the cover to Trayvon Martin to reveal the complex truth of his life and what he was like in the years and months and hours before his death. How did he deal with the burden of being the face of danger from the moment he was born? This is a question fewer people seem to be asking.

Earlier in the piece, published in Gay’s “Bad Feminist,” she writes, “This, it would seem, is yet another example of white privilege — to retain humanity in the face of inhumanity.”

Gay’s analysis applies just as well to the scripts playing out on Wilson and Brown. We struggle to understand why a white police officer who had perviously kept such a “low profile” would shoot and kill an unarmed teenager. We demand answers because this defies how things are supposed to work, because we want to believe that law enforcement protects, rather than harms. But because of these same biases, Brown’s profile is understood in a vastly different way than his killer’s. The profile is the product of a culture that assumes black criminality, a culture that accepts, time and again, the death of young people of color as the price of “community safety.”

In this context, it’s impossible to write neutrally about the death of yet another black teenager. In response to anger over the piece, Times national editor Alison Mitchell told the Washington Post:

I think, actually, we have a nuanced story about the young man and if it had been a white young man in the same exact situation, if that’s where our reporting took us, we would have written it in the same way. The story … talks about both problems and promise.

But Brown wasn’t a white young man. We rarely have to read about white young men being shot and killed by police officers for the crime of walking in the street, wearing a hoodie, coming to a stranger’s front door and asking for help. I have little doubt that Michael Brown had “problems and promise.” He was human, after all. But writing about his death, only the most recent in a staggering number of deaths of young people of color, demands greater thought, more nuance, more context than the Times piece provided. Mitchell was defending the profile in her remarks to the Post, but actually named its problem. We don’t find many white young men “in the same exact situation” that Brown found himself in. That’s exactly the point.

Katie McDonough is Salon's politics writer, focusing on gender, sexuality and reproductive justice. Follow her on Twitter @kmcdonovgh or email her at kmcdonough@salon.com.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

Loading Comments...