OPINION:
The coverage of the turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri has provided some of the worst excesses of journalistic practice, starting from the death of Michael Brown in August to the aftermath of the grand jury decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson.
Why did the story receive four months of extensive, ongoing coverage? In brief, because the editors of many news organizations wanted to focus on racial tension in the country. The confrontation between a black man and a white cop proved too good to pass up — even when the facts started getting in the way of a good story. For example, look at the protesters’ continuing use of the gesture of surrender: “Hands up; don’t shoot.” That came from Mr. Brown’s sidekick — information now discredited and that should have been highly suspect at the time. According to eyewitnesses who testified to the grand jury, Brown did not have his hands up. Instead, he charged at Officer Wilson.
But the inaccurate rendition of the events on Aug. 9 continues to mislead many people, including those football players at last Sunday’s NFL game in St. Louis. In a now-famous clip, five Rams players held up their hands during pre-game introductions in apparent support for the protesters and the dead man.
USA Today sports columnist Jarrett Bell wrote, “The gesture has become the calling card for hundreds of peaceful protests all across the nation.”
But the gesture didn’t happen when the officer and the teenager met. Journalists like Mr. Bell should read the grand jury’s report and correct the misinformation. Moreover, few “peaceful protests” occurred in Ferguson, where demonstrators destroyed a church, a dentist’s office, a pizza parlor, police cars and much more.
The New York Times, in particular, reached new heights of wrongheadedness in its coverage and commentary.
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column entitled, “When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 5.” He argued that the country should empanel a commission on race relations to “help us understand ourselves.”
But Mr. Kristof’s preachy columns tend more toward diatribe than dialogue. For example, after listing the numerous wrongs committed by whites against blacks, he ended his column with this cliche: “There are no easy solutions. But let’s talk.”
He chose to ignore the easily available evidence of the huge percentage of crimes committed by blacks on blacks. With Mr. Kristof, it’s not the facts; it’s the meme.
Then there’s Charles Blow, the Times’ visual arts columnist. He has expanded his commentary reach to ponder child abuse, parenting, sex and other “nonvisual” issues. As an African-American, however, he couldn’t pass up another opportunity to lambaste white people.
But Mr. Blow said he also wants a kumbaya moment: “This conversation is hard because we are yelling across a canyon of disparity. Maybe the first thing to do is to work on filling the canyon, leveling the field — that will help bridge the gap,” he wrote this week.
Mr. Blow’s alarmist and errant views often divide the races rather than unite them. He constantly demonstrates that being black doesn’t make you an expert on race relations.
Nevertheless, the most outlandish comments came from Marc Lamont Hill, who teaches education courses at Columbia University and provides political commentary for CNN.
“If they hadn’t looted and burned down half of Ferguson, we wouldn’t even be talking about Michael Brown right now. Ferguson is a story because of what they did,” Mr. Hill reportedly told members of a prominent Philadelphia church.
That’s right. CNN has an analyst who told a religious audience of primarily African-Americans that he thinks the illegal acts of arson and looting were needed to send a message. I hope he can help raise the millions of dollars that will now be needed to rebuild Ferguson.
• Christopher Harper is a longtime reporter who teaches journalism at Temple University. He can be contacted at charper@washingtontimes.com and followed on Twitter @charper51.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.