I very much understand and respect all of the points made here, Ross; and, I find your political analysis unique and insightful. However, from personal experience representing the de Blasio administration at public events, I was repeatedly told that my prepared remarks accurately detailing the statistics which demonstrated how New York City is the safest large city in America were “tone deaf,” showed a “disconnect” between the administration and the public, and, in some cases, were “offensive.”
This feedback came almost entirely from members of low-income communities of color at community board meetings and where the administration held many of its “Know Your Rights” workshops and learning tours. The issue was not that local media was falsely implanting a sense of fear in these individuals; rather, it was from their own experiences in their neighborhoods and from taking the subway.
It was an uncomfortable position to be in to try and refer back to my cold statistics in the face of their genuine experiences. And I am certain that I came off as both aloof and elitist to suggest that what they saw with their own eyes was not reality. Looking back, I know that I was both.
Why are you apologizing? Disagreement and counterargument are good things, but calling the messenger "tone deaf" and "offensive" is a bullying tactic that makes me suspect that the speakers don't feel the need to advance an argument when emotional appeals work better for them instead. Can we ask ourselves who were those "community members" and what is their agenda? In my experience, people who show up at community board meetings tend to be a select and unusual bunch with time on their hands that actual working people don't typically have. Why take their word that they represent anybody but themselves?
Your experience shows that the modern liberal / progressive is a fact free intellectual houseplant. I noticed in your comment that no one used the word "wrong" when describing your accurate statistics. They had to resort to, what would have been called out as a logical fallacy back when school did its job, an ad hominem attack. They didn't like your message, so they attacked the messenger.
This is why people of means are moving to safer places. Your community board meeting sounds like something out of the Napoleon and Snowball - led meetings in Animal Farm. The only thing missing was Boxer repeating "I will work harder!"
your candor is refreshing. And appreciated. There's no way to reflect a feeling of being threatened in crime statistics. And I'm glad you understand that.
Risk is situational. Most crime, and hence most violence, happens in small parts of cities. Most of NYC is pretty safe. However, if you live in one of the places it isn't, then it really is like living in a war zone. Your numbers may be accurate city wide, but it will be even safer in Brooklyn Heights, then wherever the criminal hot spot is in NYC these days. (its been decades since I've lived in Westchester so I don't want to seem out of touch if I mention a hotspot that existed in the 70's that is now too expensive for criminals to live there anymore).
I appreciate this analysis as well and also share similar misgivings. I would like to know what city viewership of local TV news looks like. Local news is a very inexpensive source of information, however varied the quality may be, and I think a lot of older, lower-income and often non-white people watch it regularly, but I don't have those numbers, just anecdotal experiences. If I'm right it complicates this narrative a lot.
On a related note it would be interesting to know what biases Spanish-language local media has when it comes to crime.
First of all, a lot of this is generational. Second of all, what’s wrong with them having a moderate to conservative bent if it’s permissible for younger reporters to subscribe (openly or not) to the more millennial, social justice oriented worldview? I think Joe Torres is a great example of how to highlight and platform progressive activists, as he did yesterday, while still subjecting them to the more conservative scrutiny with questions that older viewers would have of these figures. He had an activist on his public affairs show from Sunset Park on yesterday.
Your argument against Kramer is that she (probably) lives in the suburbs, and she (maybe) is more well off than younger reporters. This is a straw man argument unless you know these things. It's also the argument that could easily be used against "progressive" deBlasio, a wealthy Cambridge native who not only blows through stop signs in an $85,000 SUV, gets caught maskless and wandering around Prospect Park after telling everyone to stay home, insults the black community by trying to bribe the 'vaccine hesitant' with a burger and fries, but also changed his name to sound more ethnic to prospective voters.
I have never heard of Ms. Kramer before today. It sounds like she's based in reality. Some of the progressive types described above sound like they learned about people, particularly the criminal class, from a liberal textbook in a dorm room sophomore year while listening to Cat Stevens records.
What I love most about Boomers is they have so much confidence in their opinions they don't let facts get in the way.
Which is how I guess they sleep at night - they are completely unaware of their history of abject failure in just about every single policy.
They destroyed the world's most successful middle class.
Lifespans are declining.
Social mobility has died.
America has the infrastructure of a third world nation.
Oddly, punishing the poor for being poor has not made them less poor. I wonder how long it would take a Boomer to realize that the reason people commit crimes is because they are broke and have no future?
Some people commit crimes because of those reasons. Others do it because they're predators, and could easily do something legit because they certainly aren't dumb or physically infirm.
Bottom line if you're getting your ass beat and robbed by either one, you're still gonna end up with no wallet and some bruises, or worse.
It isn't just the right that use fear to push an agenda, and their aligned media does the heavy lifting of selecting the stories they show to convince them of this danger. Shootings where only one or two people died never used to make the national news. Local news yes, but never national news unless the person shot was a celebrity. Now they do. Why? Because it pushes the anti-gun agenda that there is an epidemic of mass shootings, rather than a rise in crime related (or crime adjacent) shootings. (Along with the redefinition of what a mass shooting is to include shootings between criminals in the mist of criminal activity). All to scare middle class people into taking an action based on risks they don't actually have.
"More importantly, maybe, Kramer does not live in the five boroughs." Always good to craft a take around something you haven't even bothered to confirm.
It was confirmed by your old employer, the Wall Street Journal. The "maybe" is in reference to the issue of her residence outside of NYC being, arguably, one of the most important factors in defining her worldview.
I very much understand and respect all of the points made here, Ross; and, I find your political analysis unique and insightful. However, from personal experience representing the de Blasio administration at public events, I was repeatedly told that my prepared remarks accurately detailing the statistics which demonstrated how New York City is the safest large city in America were “tone deaf,” showed a “disconnect” between the administration and the public, and, in some cases, were “offensive.”
This feedback came almost entirely from members of low-income communities of color at community board meetings and where the administration held many of its “Know Your Rights” workshops and learning tours. The issue was not that local media was falsely implanting a sense of fear in these individuals; rather, it was from their own experiences in their neighborhoods and from taking the subway.
It was an uncomfortable position to be in to try and refer back to my cold statistics in the face of their genuine experiences. And I am certain that I came off as both aloof and elitist to suggest that what they saw with their own eyes was not reality. Looking back, I know that I was both.
Why are you apologizing? Disagreement and counterargument are good things, but calling the messenger "tone deaf" and "offensive" is a bullying tactic that makes me suspect that the speakers don't feel the need to advance an argument when emotional appeals work better for them instead. Can we ask ourselves who were those "community members" and what is their agenda? In my experience, people who show up at community board meetings tend to be a select and unusual bunch with time on their hands that actual working people don't typically have. Why take their word that they represent anybody but themselves?
Your experience shows that the modern liberal / progressive is a fact free intellectual houseplant. I noticed in your comment that no one used the word "wrong" when describing your accurate statistics. They had to resort to, what would have been called out as a logical fallacy back when school did its job, an ad hominem attack. They didn't like your message, so they attacked the messenger.
This is why people of means are moving to safer places. Your community board meeting sounds like something out of the Napoleon and Snowball - led meetings in Animal Farm. The only thing missing was Boxer repeating "I will work harder!"
your candor is refreshing. And appreciated. There's no way to reflect a feeling of being threatened in crime statistics. And I'm glad you understand that.
Risk is situational. Most crime, and hence most violence, happens in small parts of cities. Most of NYC is pretty safe. However, if you live in one of the places it isn't, then it really is like living in a war zone. Your numbers may be accurate city wide, but it will be even safer in Brooklyn Heights, then wherever the criminal hot spot is in NYC these days. (its been decades since I've lived in Westchester so I don't want to seem out of touch if I mention a hotspot that existed in the 70's that is now too expensive for criminals to live there anymore).
I appreciate this analysis as well and also share similar misgivings. I would like to know what city viewership of local TV news looks like. Local news is a very inexpensive source of information, however varied the quality may be, and I think a lot of older, lower-income and often non-white people watch it regularly, but I don't have those numbers, just anecdotal experiences. If I'm right it complicates this narrative a lot.
On a related note it would be interesting to know what biases Spanish-language local media has when it comes to crime.
First of all, a lot of this is generational. Second of all, what’s wrong with them having a moderate to conservative bent if it’s permissible for younger reporters to subscribe (openly or not) to the more millennial, social justice oriented worldview? I think Joe Torres is a great example of how to highlight and platform progressive activists, as he did yesterday, while still subjecting them to the more conservative scrutiny with questions that older viewers would have of these figures. He had an activist on his public affairs show from Sunset Park on yesterday.
Your argument against Kramer is that she (probably) lives in the suburbs, and she (maybe) is more well off than younger reporters. This is a straw man argument unless you know these things. It's also the argument that could easily be used against "progressive" deBlasio, a wealthy Cambridge native who not only blows through stop signs in an $85,000 SUV, gets caught maskless and wandering around Prospect Park after telling everyone to stay home, insults the black community by trying to bribe the 'vaccine hesitant' with a burger and fries, but also changed his name to sound more ethnic to prospective voters.
I have never heard of Ms. Kramer before today. It sounds like she's based in reality. Some of the progressive types described above sound like they learned about people, particularly the criminal class, from a liberal textbook in a dorm room sophomore year while listening to Cat Stevens records.
What I love most about Boomers is they have so much confidence in their opinions they don't let facts get in the way.
Which is how I guess they sleep at night - they are completely unaware of their history of abject failure in just about every single policy.
They destroyed the world's most successful middle class.
Lifespans are declining.
Social mobility has died.
America has the infrastructure of a third world nation.
Oddly, punishing the poor for being poor has not made them less poor. I wonder how long it would take a Boomer to realize that the reason people commit crimes is because they are broke and have no future?
Some people commit crimes because of those reasons. Others do it because they're predators, and could easily do something legit because they certainly aren't dumb or physically infirm.
Bottom line if you're getting your ass beat and robbed by either one, you're still gonna end up with no wallet and some bruises, or worse.
It isn't just the right that use fear to push an agenda, and their aligned media does the heavy lifting of selecting the stories they show to convince them of this danger. Shootings where only one or two people died never used to make the national news. Local news yes, but never national news unless the person shot was a celebrity. Now they do. Why? Because it pushes the anti-gun agenda that there is an epidemic of mass shootings, rather than a rise in crime related (or crime adjacent) shootings. (Along with the redefinition of what a mass shooting is to include shootings between criminals in the mist of criminal activity). All to scare middle class people into taking an action based on risks they don't actually have.
"More importantly, maybe, Kramer does not live in the five boroughs." Always good to craft a take around something you haven't even bothered to confirm.
It was confirmed by your old employer, the Wall Street Journal. The "maybe" is in reference to the issue of her residence outside of NYC being, arguably, one of the most important factors in defining her worldview.
*expressing* her worldview
So you’re using an article from 2015 as your confirmation? OK.
I'll grip about NY1 but it's at least appears interested in journalism and not crime stenography. Great write-up.