What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Brooklynlove you’re really annoying. I doubt you’re in a position to accurately describe NY Times crime coverage of 25 years ago.

    It is what it is. You can’t gloss it over or downplay it.

  2. by “inversely related” i mean that shootings of this type did not get nearly as much press in the Times 25 years ago when they happened with much more regularity.

    and the comment re silence/tolerance/complacency/??? in the interest of preserving home values is misplaced, and frankly, completely out of touch.

  3. Saying things like

    “the amount of attention the NYT pays to these shootings and the actual number of shootings are so inversely related”

    or the standard response:

    “it could happen anywhere”

    are examples of trying to protect home values;

    No I dont live in Bed-Stuy anymore – why… b/c it was too dangerous and all people wanted to do was make excuses for the animals who make the streets dangerous – or ignore it and pretend it wasnt any worse then anywhere else.

  4. “trying to protect their home values” and “stand up and demand an end to the escalating violence” are one in the same. If they’re not standing up, they’re not trying to protect. Talk is cheap. However, standing up can cost you your life.

    Do you live in one of these communities, 10:24? If so, what are you doing?

1 2