Their flagship publication, The Free Press’, failure to correct an error-filled defense of George Floyd’s killer demonstrates that they are just another partisan tribe
Apart from this current issue, why Hughes’ views on race, which are those of the civil rights movement of the ‘60s, should be considered “center-right” gives one pause.
God. I have HATED “The Free Press” since it’s inception. I hated Weiss’s complaints and whining about why she left The New York Times….
And I felt horrible for my hating.
Now I get it. Thank you.
It wasn’t hate I felt, it was natural circumspection in the face of hypocritical aplomb that so clearly sought to tear down reasonable thought, while invoking the virtue of reasonable thought.
This is the article I was waiting for before revising my reaction to the Floyd murder, which I, of course, witnessed, along with the trial. I’m sorry to see Hughes this way, since I agree with his position on DEI politics. It’s important to put this anti-reform mania in a political context, esp. for those who chant about their “freedoms” at every turn. An unregulated militarized force of armed state agents (many of whom are trained in urban warfare and regard the populace as mere “civilians”) doesn’t end well.
This piece reveals Balko’s real agenda—taking down anyone who cannot be tarred with the smear of being a rightwing racist but who express independent views on race and a whole range of social and political issues.
The moral here is: never watch any documentary ever. I have never seen one that wasn't horribly misleading, even when I agreed with the general principle the director was driving at. Nuanced people that care about the truth don't tend to make documentaries, or if they do then no one is watching them (I'm excluding history documentaries, keep doing your thing Ken Burns).
Thank you for writing this. I watched "The Fall of Minneapolis" and was horrified by it. So add me to the list of people whose mind you have changed about it.
Gasp, you mean everyone is vulnerable to bias and groupthink?!?
But the goal should be to try to minimize it, and while I agree with your criticisms in this piece, I think the accusatory framing (as if we don't all struggle with this problem) is likely to exacerbate the tribal bias not help people correct it.
Though it's not as if I'm not often guilty of that as well.
This article does not outline a debunking of legal claims of facts. It simply stresses a recharacterization and organization of the facts in support of a desired outcome. George Floyd is largely responsible for his own death. He lead the life of an irresponsible, unprincipled criminal and addict. As a result of his own poor choices he generated and created a confrontation with police that he escalated to the point of it being life threatening for everyone involved. Do I think the Officer is justified in his actions? NO! But I do know that Police are some of the most under-trained public servants in the USA! I consider the events a perfect storm of a reprobate meeting a poorly trained and exhausted police officer. The protests were completely criminal. Bad Facts, Bad Acts, BS Message but they triggered enough Leftists and excited enough Anarchists to gain legs. All of this did ensure that the Police Officer HAD to be convicted at all costs.
I would be willing to see this as the result of carelessness or bad training...but when your fellow police officers tell you to stop and you keep going, that's not a mistake. That's a choice.
I agree. But keep in mind the context that he made this choice. He has spent how much time in a vigorous physical struggle with a large intoxicated man? I am sure he was shaken. The average police officer receives about 8 hours of training a year! Most of the private sector receive more than that in a typical quarter. De-Escalation, Restraint Techniques, these are marginally addressed in police training let alone adequate to provide a level of proficiency to instill confidence and skill. I don't believe that the Officer intended to kill Floyd. I think he was rattled and in no way wanted to allow Floyd an opportunity to get going again - and to accomplish this he was willing to put Floyd's life in serious risk in order to obtain this goal.
Does this mean I can kill someone on the job and not be held responsible because I work as an RN and the job is DAMNED stress-full?!? And lately the normal stress is compounded by understaffing and overt violence. So if I kill somebody…. It’s not MY fault, it’s the patient who stressed me out’s fault. Right?
If the patient comes into your hospital, strung out and high, is acting erratic, attempting to steal meds from the cabinets, and after multiple efforts to get him to leave he becomes physically combative with you as you and the orderly try to remove him from the premises so he doesn't pose a threat to the other staff and patients, and you reach for a sedative - stick it in him and then think maybe half a syringe isn't enough because the SOB is punching, kicking and biting you and finally you say FU-KIT, I'm going to smash the whole syringe in him. Then, even then, we will probably prosecute you and you'll be found guilty of criminal homicide. Which is probably the right call. I didn't say that the Officer wasn't at fault or not criminally liable. What I said was the Floyd was largely responsible for creating a situation that put everyone at risk.
I thank you for the hard work you do - and I hope you are able to get some rest in between shifts. All the Best and God Bless.
It’s narrativizing something. As in “these opinions are doubled down on” because people are too anti woke that their opinions don’t come from an honest place. That’s just what is being said here. That’s what the fifth guys are upset about. In a very high concept way Radley and shikma are calling them liars.
See. They didn’t denounce it “enough”. Which is a weird fucking thing to say right? What is the proper level? Is this just the ribbon bit from sienfeld? Do the guys at the fifth just not want to wear the ribbon? That seems to be what’s upsetting people.
And that’s fucking weird to me. That their retraction (of what I have no idea I’m a frequent listener and I honestly have no idea what was controversial other than they mentioned it and said it was kind of crappy, but interesting from a media perspective). That’s it. That’s “amplification”. That’s to be apologized for? It’s so bizarre.
I find their unnecessary defense of themselves honest and pretty convincing. I find the cherry picking and mental gymnastics of the populist a tad disappointing.
I think your expose is worthwhile, but the details are so minor and semantic that I can't assume bad faith on the part of Hughes. The larger message of his piece was that there should have been reasonable doubt in the trial, and that normal legal circumstances didn't apply in the Chauvin trial. This seems potentially valid, given the information we have about the jury after the fact. Keep in mind: even police (with several years of total LE experience) who simply restrained bystanders went to prison for YEARS. We should absolutely be honest about the details of the trial but the weight of the dishonesty still rests 95% on the legacy media, which misreported this case (and other, politically-related incidents) incredibly dishonestly.
Jumping ship from the fifth column after how they all handled this topic. They have major blind spots. I appreciate the folks trying to hold people's feet to fire. Had little exchange with Matt Welch. Doubt he will respond.
Thanks. You captured exactly how I feel. I honestly think I'm being gas lighted here, especially on the cop-centric point. Matt claims that he meant that as a criticism. In fact, he meant it as a complement. He appreciated it. We got that portion of the podcast transcribed. I can share it with you if it'll be helpful. You'll need to send me your email, though.
Looking forward to your response to Coleman's very clearheaded response to your 30,000 words: https://www.thefp.com/p/coleman-hughes-derek-chauvin-george-floyd
Apart from this current issue, why Hughes’ views on race, which are those of the civil rights movement of the ‘60s, should be considered “center-right” gives one pause.
Mr Balko, I found you article very interesting. But your claim about lower crime seems dubious.
Did you read a report on crime in The Dispatch? It is actually way up contrary to what you suggest, including retail crime:
https://thedispatch.com/article/why-the-perception-that-crime-is-rising-persists/
God. I have HATED “The Free Press” since it’s inception. I hated Weiss’s complaints and whining about why she left The New York Times….
And I felt horrible for my hating.
Now I get it. Thank you.
It wasn’t hate I felt, it was natural circumspection in the face of hypocritical aplomb that so clearly sought to tear down reasonable thought, while invoking the virtue of reasonable thought.
Fucking gaslighting.
And I do hate gaslighting.
This is the article I was waiting for before revising my reaction to the Floyd murder, which I, of course, witnessed, along with the trial. I’m sorry to see Hughes this way, since I agree with his position on DEI politics. It’s important to put this anti-reform mania in a political context, esp. for those who chant about their “freedoms” at every turn. An unregulated militarized force of armed state agents (many of whom are trained in urban warfare and regard the populace as mere “civilians”) doesn’t end well.
“Heterodox”
This piece reveals Balko’s real agenda—taking down anyone who cannot be tarred with the smear of being a rightwing racist but who express independent views on race and a whole range of social and political issues.
You’re delusional
Fentanyl sucks
The moral here is: never watch any documentary ever. I have never seen one that wasn't horribly misleading, even when I agreed with the general principle the director was driving at. Nuanced people that care about the truth don't tend to make documentaries, or if they do then no one is watching them (I'm excluding history documentaries, keep doing your thing Ken Burns).
Thank you for writing this. I watched "The Fall of Minneapolis" and was horrified by it. So add me to the list of people whose mind you have changed about it.
Gasp, you mean everyone is vulnerable to bias and groupthink?!?
But the goal should be to try to minimize it, and while I agree with your criticisms in this piece, I think the accusatory framing (as if we don't all struggle with this problem) is likely to exacerbate the tribal bias not help people correct it.
Though it's not as if I'm not often guilty of that as well.
This article does not outline a debunking of legal claims of facts. It simply stresses a recharacterization and organization of the facts in support of a desired outcome. George Floyd is largely responsible for his own death. He lead the life of an irresponsible, unprincipled criminal and addict. As a result of his own poor choices he generated and created a confrontation with police that he escalated to the point of it being life threatening for everyone involved. Do I think the Officer is justified in his actions? NO! But I do know that Police are some of the most under-trained public servants in the USA! I consider the events a perfect storm of a reprobate meeting a poorly trained and exhausted police officer. The protests were completely criminal. Bad Facts, Bad Acts, BS Message but they triggered enough Leftists and excited enough Anarchists to gain legs. All of this did ensure that the Police Officer HAD to be convicted at all costs.
I would be willing to see this as the result of carelessness or bad training...but when your fellow police officers tell you to stop and you keep going, that's not a mistake. That's a choice.
I agree. But keep in mind the context that he made this choice. He has spent how much time in a vigorous physical struggle with a large intoxicated man? I am sure he was shaken. The average police officer receives about 8 hours of training a year! Most of the private sector receive more than that in a typical quarter. De-Escalation, Restraint Techniques, these are marginally addressed in police training let alone adequate to provide a level of proficiency to instill confidence and skill. I don't believe that the Officer intended to kill Floyd. I think he was rattled and in no way wanted to allow Floyd an opportunity to get going again - and to accomplish this he was willing to put Floyd's life in serious risk in order to obtain this goal.
Does this mean I can kill someone on the job and not be held responsible because I work as an RN and the job is DAMNED stress-full?!? And lately the normal stress is compounded by understaffing and overt violence. So if I kill somebody…. It’s not MY fault, it’s the patient who stressed me out’s fault. Right?
If the patient comes into your hospital, strung out and high, is acting erratic, attempting to steal meds from the cabinets, and after multiple efforts to get him to leave he becomes physically combative with you as you and the orderly try to remove him from the premises so he doesn't pose a threat to the other staff and patients, and you reach for a sedative - stick it in him and then think maybe half a syringe isn't enough because the SOB is punching, kicking and biting you and finally you say FU-KIT, I'm going to smash the whole syringe in him. Then, even then, we will probably prosecute you and you'll be found guilty of criminal homicide. Which is probably the right call. I didn't say that the Officer wasn't at fault or not criminally liable. What I said was the Floyd was largely responsible for creating a situation that put everyone at risk.
I thank you for the hard work you do - and I hope you are able to get some rest in between shifts. All the Best and God Bless.
I think this is a pretty big misreading of what’s happening.
How so?
It’s narrativizing something. As in “these opinions are doubled down on” because people are too anti woke that their opinions don’t come from an honest place. That’s just what is being said here. That’s what the fifth guys are upset about. In a very high concept way Radley and shikma are calling them liars.
See. They didn’t denounce it “enough”. Which is a weird fucking thing to say right? What is the proper level? Is this just the ribbon bit from sienfeld? Do the guys at the fifth just not want to wear the ribbon? That seems to be what’s upsetting people.
And that’s fucking weird to me. That their retraction (of what I have no idea I’m a frequent listener and I honestly have no idea what was controversial other than they mentioned it and said it was kind of crappy, but interesting from a media perspective). That’s it. That’s “amplification”. That’s to be apologized for? It’s so bizarre.
I find their unnecessary defense of themselves honest and pretty convincing. I find the cherry picking and mental gymnastics of the populist a tad disappointing.
I think your expose is worthwhile, but the details are so minor and semantic that I can't assume bad faith on the part of Hughes. The larger message of his piece was that there should have been reasonable doubt in the trial, and that normal legal circumstances didn't apply in the Chauvin trial. This seems potentially valid, given the information we have about the jury after the fact. Keep in mind: even police (with several years of total LE experience) who simply restrained bystanders went to prison for YEARS. We should absolutely be honest about the details of the trial but the weight of the dishonesty still rests 95% on the legacy media, which misreported this case (and other, politically-related incidents) incredibly dishonestly.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/
So the legacy media were the jurors? Or did they tell the jury how to decide?
Or did they influence the defendant’s legal representation?
HOW did normal legal circumstances not apply?
Who picks the jury?
The “weight of dishonesty”?
Jurors openly admitted to racial bias
Racial bias in jury decisions is a longstanding tradition in the United States of America…
https://www.google.com/search?q=all+white+jury+convicts+black+man&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Jumping ship from the fifth column after how they all handled this topic. They have major blind spots. I appreciate the folks trying to hold people's feet to fire. Had little exchange with Matt Welch. Doubt he will respond.
https://wethefifth.substack.com/p/firehose-84-did-we-really-mostly/comment/51847008?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx
Thanks. You captured exactly how I feel. I honestly think I'm being gas lighted here, especially on the cop-centric point. Matt claims that he meant that as a criticism. In fact, he meant it as a complement. He appreciated it. We got that portion of the podcast transcribed. I can share it with you if it'll be helpful. You'll need to send me your email, though.