There was an Editorial Observer piece in the New York Times today (12/4/08) that really read like a piece from the segregated South of the 1950s, taking the side of the Jim Crow-enforcing sheriff against the outside agitators.
The piece described an event at a church in Patchogue, N.Y., that encouraged immigrants to talk about hidden hate crimes in a community where a gang had allegedly targeted immigrants for a string of assaults that went unreported until the crimes escalated into the murder of Ecuadorean Marcelo Lucero. The church's pastor, working with an activist group, got immigrant crime victims to record their stories and tried to hook them up with lawyers. Then they held a press conference.
By the New York Times' account, that's pretty much all that happened. But in the Times' telling, it was headlined as "A Hate-Crime Circus." Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes described it as a "guilt fiesta," bizarrely equating it in his lead with the stabbing that it was a response to–both were "crimes against immigrants."
In the role of the put-upon sheriff trying to keep the Freedom Riders from stirring up the local colored folk, Downes has the Patchogue Mayor Paul Pontieri, Jr., who "kept a rueful watch from the edge of the circus ring":
Mr. Pontieri has spent a lot of time getting to know his Latino neighbors better and insists that they are not angry. There is confusion and sadness, he said, but the anger–like the teens accused of killing Mr. Lucero–comes from outside.
(Actually, the accused teens didn't come from very far outside Patchogue; some of them came from East Patchogue, while the others came from Medford, which is close enough to have the same high school.)
Downes thinks of himself as an advocate for immigrants. With friends like these, who needs enemies?


Do you think the elite bastards that profess to be "friends" of oppressed peoples might be nearly as dangerous in a sense as those that assault and murder them?
It's one thing to hear "militant radicals" damned by the Limbaughs and O'Reillys, but when the "reasonable" voice of the NYT et al does so, it grants that view a veneer of "respectability" that can confuse sympathetic but ignorant folks.
I recall such a situation nearly thirty years ago, when I was a young'un striving mightily to understand the world, and not being hip to how the corpress works.
Hodding Carter did a PBS report (IIRC) pretty much equating the violence of the Salvadoran military with the armed resistance of the FMLN.
Whatever sins the revolutionaries committed, that's obviously a deceitful comparison … yet in my naivet
For some reason, that didn't fully post … might've been the accent at the end of "naivete".
To finish …
Whatever sins the revolutionaries committed, that's obviously a deceitful comparison … yet in my naivete, it had a paralyzing effect on me, being led to believe both sides were equally murderous.
I imagine I wasn't the only one so affected … and I imagine that same dynamic occurs today in instances like this.
And I also imagine that's precisely the desired effect.
[...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/12/05/from-selma-to-long-island-nyt-denounces-outside-agitators/ [...]