The New York Times’s description of Michael Brown as “no angel” has prompted a swift, critical reaction from other media outlets, including Vox, and various people on social media.
The New York Times called Michael Brown “no angel.” Here’s how it described serial killers.
Alison Mitchell, national editor for the Times, defended the term in conversations with the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple:
“It comes out of the opening scene,” says Mitchell, who notes that “like many teenagers,” Brown was indeed “no angel.” Okay, but would the New York Times have chosen this term — which is commonly used to describe miscreants and thugs — if the victim had been white? Mitchell: “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.” When asked whether she thought that “no angel” was a loaded term in this context, Mitchell said she didn’t believe it was. “The story ... talks about both problems and promise,” she notes.
The Times's response has done little to calm the storm. Sean McElwee, research assistant at Demos, dug into the archives to compare the Times's description of Brown to the newspaper's previous descriptions of serial killers and terrorists. Of course, comparing articles produced decades apart by different writers and editors isn't an exact science. But it does lend context to the widespread frustration over how young black men are portrayed in the media. See a compilation of McElwee's tweets below:
More in: Tensions in Ferguson
By Jenée Desmond-Harris
By Alex Abad-Santos
