Why John Eligon's New York Times profile of Mike Brown isn't as bad as many people think

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I certainly understand why so many people are upset about certain aspects of John Eligon's article on Mike Brown in the Times, specifically the use of the phrase "no angel" and, well, basically all of this:

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor. 

And initially I was upset about it as well. Because, honestly, what does any of this have to do with this young man's murder at the hands of the police of Ferguson, Missouri?

Absolutely nothing.

And yet, I think there's been a good deal of over-reaction to this article, understandable, perhaps, in such a highly-charged atmosphere. Because, really, the article is a comprehensive profile of Brown, not some hit job on Fox News. And if you're going to write an honest profile of who this young man was, you can't leave out some parts of who he was, or what he did, just because they don't make him out to be a saint.

And, further, just because he wasn't a saint doesn't mean what happened to him was just -- and wasn't murder. What the police did was wrong no matter who the victim was. The victim just happened to be Mike Brown.

Read more »

Another thing that makes politics so hard

By Richard K. Barry

In today's New York Times there is a story about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In it, he bemoans the fact that after years at the helm it's hard to maintain one's popularity. Political pros know there are two sides to incumbency. The first is that being around a long time keeps your profile high making it harder for challengers to get noticed. The other side is that being around a long time gives you ample opportunity to piss people off. Hence Bloomberg's comment:

Every time you make a decision you lose half the people. After five decisions there is only you and your mother, and I'm not sure about her.

The corollary to this is that in politics people may appreciate the things you did that help them, but they remember the things you did that hurt them.

A thought for the day.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)