LiveWire

Maynard says:

About Ferguson…Taranto’s WSJ article (“Compare and Contrast”; I’d link but it’s behind a pay wall) drew an interesting contrast between New York Times coverage of the reaction to the Ferguson shooting against their earlier reacting of the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson.

The NYT editorial about Ferguson takes an understanding tone:

For the black community of Ferguson, the killing of Michael Brown was the last straw in a long train of abuses that they have suffered daily at the hands of the local police. News accounts have strongly suggested, for example, that the police in St. Louis County’s many municipalities systematically target poor and minority citizens for street and traffic stops—partly to generate fines—which has the effect of both bankrupting and criminalizing whole communities.

In this context, the police are justifiably seen as an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse.

The case resonated across the country—in New York City, Chicago and Oakland—because the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast. This point was underscored last month in a grim report by ProPublica, showing that young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk—21 times greater—of being shot dead by police than young white men. These statistics reflect the fact that many police officers see black men as expendable figures on the urban landscape, not quite human beings.

Taranto comments:

The Times’s indulgent attitude toward the Ferguson rioters stands in marked contrast with the paper’s attitude toward actual peaceful protesters that disagree with its politics, namely the Tea Party. Who can forget the paper’s infamous editorial of Jan. 10, 2011, two days after the massacre in Tucson, Ariz., in which Jared Loughner killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:

…followed by a quote from that NYT editorial:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

I remember the media firestorm in the wake of Tucson, with Tea Party and Sarah Palin being singled out as having fanned the flames of mindless rage. Never mind the fact that Tea Party rallies were the most civil and clean of any meeting, and never mind that the Tuscon shooter was a certifiable lunatic who had posted pictures of himself burning an American flag. And never mind, I would argue, that Tea Party has a legitimate beef against a government that doesn’t respect the Constitution, which it addresses in legitimate ways, while Ferguson defends thugs with thuggery. We are always portrayed in nasty tones; they are always portrayed with a degree of understanding and sympathy. Our gripes must always be ignored; theirs must always be addressed.

Strange world.