vox--2020-06-07--The New York Times staff revolt over Tom Cotton’s op-ed, explained

Update , June 6 : On Sunday , New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned from his post .
“ Last week , we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes , not the first we ’ ve experienced in recent years , ” publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote in an email to the Times ’ s employees .
“ James and I agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.
” James Dao , the editor under Bennet directly responsible for the Cotton op-ed , is being transferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece , originally published on Friday , explains the context for this resignation .
The precipitating event was the opinion section ’ s publication of an inflammatory op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) calling for the deployment of US military to protest hot spots in the name of quelling “ riots ” — a piece that touched off a revolt within the Times newsroom .
It was later reported that the Times ’ s opinion section had in fact reached out to Cotton and , to make matters worse , Bennet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publication .
But the Cotton saga was just the latest flare-up in a tenure marked by deep tensions between Bennet and Times staff — tensions revealed by Vox interviews with Times staff and explained below .
This week , the New York Times staff revolted against its editors .
The inciting incident was the decision to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) titled “ Send In the Troops.
” Claiming that “ rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy , ” Cotton argued that soldiers should be sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end the violence .
“ One thing above all else will restore order to our streets : an overwhelming show of force to disperse , detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers , ” the senator wrote .
Shortly after the column ’ s publication on Wednesday evening , a number of Times staffers began tweeting a screenshot of the piece ’ s headline captioned with the same phrase : “ Running this puts Black @ NYTimes staff in danger.
” Dozens of Times staff members sent out variants over the course of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead ; many non-Times journalists tweeted the same message in solidarity .
James Bennet , the editor of the opinion section , wrote a Twitter thread explaining the decision to run the op-ed , but it wasn ’ t enough for many Times staffers ( Bennet later admitted he hadn ’ t read the piece pre-publication ) .
The complaints from Times staffers continued to roll in on Thursday ; several used a sick day to take the day off in protest , and many staged a virtual walkout .
Late on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the decision — blaming a “ rushed editorial process ” for an op-ed that “ did not meet our standards.
” The paper vowed to reduce the number of op-eds going forward and step up its fact-checking process .
And at a Friday meeting , Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger unequivocally denounced the piece , saying it “ should not have been published.
” One narrative of these events , circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread , cast the conflict in ideological terms : an internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social justice warriors .
But Weiss ’ s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues ; several Times reporters I spoke to , all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation , cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement .
( Times representatives did not respond to my request for comment . )
They argued that elements of Bennet ’ s op-ed page — including Weiss , deputy editor James Dao ( who oversaw the Cotton piece ) , and columnist Bret Stephens — have elevated trolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind of raison d ’ être , one that has led to the publication of poor-quality material and damaged the ability of other staffers to do their jobs .
“ Does op-ed care at all about how its actions affect the newsroom whose legitimacy and sweat it trades on in order to sling hot takes ?
It ’ s not clear that they do , ” one Times staffer told me .
This internal staff conflict , insular as it may seem to outsiders , speaks to a fundamental question not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
It ’ s not a debate about whether the Times should have conservative voices at all .
The op-ed page employs Ross Douthat and David Brooks as staff columnists and regularly publishes outside contributions by Republicans and conservative thinkers , mostly without serious controversy .
Rather , it ’ s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse .
Does every idea that ’ s popular in power , no matter how poorly considered , deserve some kind of respectful airing in mainstream publications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of quality of argument and moral decency , where editors need to draw the line — especially in the Trump era ?
Why the Cotton op-ed was such a flashpoint Broadly speaking , traditional newspapers like the Times draw pretty strict distinctions between their news and opinion sections : separate editors , separate contributors , separate missions .
These lines are fuzzy intellectually — sometimes news writers analyze news in a way that reads like opinion , sometimes columnists break previously unreported news — but taken very seriously institutionally .
The idea is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the provocative opinions expressed by their opinion colleagues , the editorial board ( which writes unsigned opinion articles ) , and the outside contributors they publish .
After James Bennet was hired to lead the Times opinion section , he made it clear that part of his mission would be challenging the Times ’ s mostly liberal readership with views they don ’ t agree with .
This is a point he ’ s been explicit on throughout his tenure .
“ We owe our readers an honest struggle over the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re in possession of God ’ s own map , ” he wrote in a 2018 memo .
“ That means being willing to challenge our own assumptions ; it means being open to counter-arguments even as we advance our own convictions ; it means listening to voices that we may object to and even sometimes find obnoxious , provided they meet the same tests of intellectual honesty , respect for others and openness.
” In practice , however , Bennet ’ s approach to this goal has frustrated not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editors , who believe he ’ s pushed out low-quality articles on hot-button issues in the name of listening to “ obnoxious ” views .
The Cotton op-ed provoked such a strong backlash not only because of the incredibly high stakes of the argument for staffers — especially black ones — but also because it crystallized this internal critique of Bennet ’ s tenure .
The core thesis of Cotton ’ s argument is that American streets were beset by an “ orgy of violence ” that “ has nothing to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction ” — and must be put down by an overwhelming show of force by the US military , as local police are simply not up to the task .
Cotton provides no hard evidence that the rioting has overwhelmed local police ; the best reporting suggests the looting is significantly less devastating than the 1992 LA riots ( the last time the military was called in to restore order ) .
Cotton asserts that deploying the military would calm the situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument as to why this would be the case .
In fact , we have good reason to believe that more militarized displays of force from police tend to turn peaceful protests violent .
It ’ s entirely possible the military would make things worse .
This is the meaning of the protest that “ running this op-ed puts black New York Times reporters in danger ” : If Trump were to send in the troops , it could lead to harm to Times reporters who are covering protests or merely walking near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the piece acknowledges that the protests are primarily peaceful — “ a majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn ’ t be confused with bands of miscreants ” — and there is no acknowledgment that governors and mayors don ’ t actually want the military deployed .
It ’ s not clear , reading Cotton ’ s argument , how the military could distinguish between “ peaceful protesters ” and “ looters.
” It comes across as a call to put down the largely peaceful racial justice demonstrations by force , over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also contained a significant factual distortion .
Cotton argued that “ cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa ” were “ infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd ’ s death for their own anarchic purposes.
” There ’ s vanishingly little public evidence to support the idea that this is a large-scale problem .
A May 31 FBI report from the Washington field office found “ no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence ” in looting .
The Times itself reported that claims of widescale antifa involvement in the violence are , by one metric , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” currently spreading in reports on the protests .
The problem with the piece wasn ’ t just its call for potentially deadly use of force , though that was part of it — it ’ s that it was bad journalism .
“ We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical , liberal , and conservative voices , ” tweeted Roxane Gay , a Times writer and public intellectual who writes about social issues .
“ [ Cotton ’ s piece ] is not that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupation as if the constitution doesn ’ t exist.
” The bigger context for the Times revolt Since Donald Trump ’ s election , there have been running discussions in every mainstream media organization about how to cover a man who openly treats them as the enemy .
At the same time , subscribing to a paper like the Times has become a kind of performance of resistance for liberal Americans ( who can then threaten to unsubscribe from the paper when it publishes a provocative op-ed in Bennet ’ s section ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work between the need to cover the president fairly despite his anti-media tirades , the generally left-leaning tilt of journalists themselves , and the need to hold onto subscriptions in an era where advertising is an increasingly unstable source of revenue .
All of these factors play into the way the Times in general has approached covering Trump and the Republican party he dominates .
In this case , many Times staff members believe that Bennet ’ s attempts to serve as a counterweight to the anti-Trump and anti-Republican incentives have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times op-ed section had elevated the provocation of its liberal readers into a value — that the newspaper has been willing to publish even badly argued pieces so long as they ’ re sufficiently abrasive to a liberal audience , in ways that actively damage the rest of the paper .
Bennet ’ s 2017 decision to hire Stephens , then a Wall Street Journal scribe who had once written about “ the disease of the Arab mind , ” is a paradigmatic case .
From Stephens ’ s very first Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science , to his March 2020 piece about how Woody Allen was a misunderstood victim of cancel culture , he embodied an ethos of “ owning the libs ” at any cost that much of the newsroom found galling .
Weiss is a similar recent hire .
She has a penchant for writing right-leaning culture war pieces , including popularizing the term “ intellectual dark web ” to describe a group of online writers who challenge liberal nostrums around race and gender .
But her writing has also contained analytic sloppiness and factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 column on antifa and the left ’ s purported hostility to free speech , she cited a fake Twitter account claiming to represent the movement .
In another column , she misinterpreted the colloquial meaning of the word “ owns ” in a tweet by a socialist podcast host to accuse him of anti-Semitism .
If the op-ed section were really as siloed from news in practice as it is in theory , this might be a more containable problem .
However , the Times ’ s reputation is a holistic thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people see the paper , and that affects the ability of reporters and editors to do their jobs .
( There is also a fair amount of staff movement between the two sides . )
The fallout from the Cotton piece makes the issue clear .
Marc Tracy , a media reporter at the Times , spoke with three reporters who say that sources would not talk to them after the opinion ’ s publication .
Freelance journalist Kara Brown turned down an assignment out of frustration with the Cotton piece : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion section was not only publishing bad work , but bad work that had this kind of adverse consequences for other staffers , crystallized the long-running frustrations with Bennet ’ s tenure as opinion leader — prompting the public revolt .
“ Internal NYT Slack [ a workplace messaging app ] was burning up overnight with pretty close to universal outrage at the op-ed and a lot of clearly pent-up frustration with the op-ed side more generally , ” a Times staffer told me .
“ But obviously a lot of people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are people of color , [ are ] also publicly rebuking the decision to publish it.
” This isn ’ t a purely ideological issue .
It ’ s a question of professional respect and thoughtfulness about how two sections can work together while still following through on their core missions .
What is the Times revolt really about ?
If you don ’ t have all of this context , it ’ s easy to see this fight as being some kind of ideological proxy war .
You could imagine this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warriors on the Times staff fighting to suppress the publication of views that they find dangerous , opposed by older staff who understand the importance of free expression and hearing competing views .
Indeed , that ’ s how Weiss cast it in a tweetstorm sent during a meeting of the site ’ s op-ed staff : It ’ s easy to understand where Weiss is coming from here ideologically , especially given the prominence of somewhat oblique complaints about putting black staffers in danger in the public discourse surrounding the op-ed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the thread , pretty neatly confirms her prior beliefs about the dynamics of public life in the era of “ woke ” politics .
But that doesn ’ t make it right .
“ I am in the same meeting that Bari appears to be livetweeting .
This [ is ] inaccurate in both characterizations , ” Max Strasser , an opinion editor , tweeted .
“ It ’ s not a civil war , it ’ s an editorial conversation ; and it ’ s not breaking down along generational lines.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploded with Times reporters and opinion writers accusing her of inaccurately describing the internal conversation surrounding these issues .
My own conversations with Times staffers gave the same perception : Weiss seemed to be ginning up this “ controversy ” largely out of thin air .
In Times discussions on Slack , its main work communication tool , the staff appeared largely unified around opposition to publishing the op-ed .
“ I ’ ve seen way over a hundred people posting comments , into the hundreds if you count people posting supportive Slack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing back , ” said one Times staffer .
“ The idea of a big divide or internal argument just has no basis that I ’ m at all aware of.
” The brass seem to have sided with the non-Weiss newsroom .
Sulzberger apologized for the piece in Friday ’ s company meeting , as did Bennet .
“ I ’ m very sorry for the pain this piece has caused .
...
I ’ m responsible for this , ” Bennet said .
“ We need to interrogate everything [ about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s certainly a productive first step , from the perspective of the Times ’ s aggrieved workforce .
So , too , were Bennet ’ s comments rebuking Weiss ’ s tweet thread , saying he “ felt betrayed ” by the bad judgment .
But while Weiss may have the narrative wrong , that doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t profound ideological questions surrounding the decision to publish the Cotton op-ed .
The best description of the issue I ’ ve seen is from Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues that there might have been some value in publishing the piece — not enough to justify its publication , but still some .
Cotton ’ s argument is so abhorrent , so poorly reasoned , that it sheds real light on who currently wields power in the United States : It ’ s not wrong to write about Cotton ’ s view or engage with it in some way .
It ’ s actually vital that liberal audiences understand the nature of the modern conservative movement , the degree to which reactionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than its margins .
But commissioning an op-ed from the loudest proponent of this view — the Times reached out to Cotton , not vice-versa — does not put the views in proper context .
It seems to serve more as a way of shocking readers , of trolling them , rather than informing them .
It ’ s the characteristic problem of the Bennet era , emerging at one of the worst possible times .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contribution to Vox today .

Update, June 7: On Sunday, New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned from his post. “Last week, we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years,” publisher A.G. Sulzberger wrote in an email to the Times’s employees. “James and I agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.” James Dao, the editor under Bennet directly responsible for the Cotton op-ed, is being transferred to a different role.
The following piece, originally published on Friday, explains the context for this resignation. The precipitating event was the opinion section’s publication of an inflammatory op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) calling for the deployment of US military to protest hot spots in the name of quelling “riots” — a piece that touched off a revolt within the Times newsroom. It was later reported that the Times’s opinion section had in fact reached out to Cotton and, to make matters worse, Bennet had not read the piece prior to publication.
But the Cotton saga was just the latest flare-up in a tenure marked by deep tensions between Bennet and Times staff — tensions revealed by Vox interviews with Times staff and explained below.
This week, the New York Times staff revolted against its editors.
The inciting incident was the decision to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) titled “Send In the Troops.” Claiming that “rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy,” Cotton argued that soldiers should be sent as “backup” for the police to end the violence.
“One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers,” the senator wrote.
Shortly after the column’s publication on Wednesday evening, a number of Times staffers began tweeting a screenshot of the piece’s headline captioned with the same phrase: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Dozens of Times staff members sent out variants over the course of the evening, with black staffers taking the lead; many non-Times journalists tweeted the same message in solidarity.
James Bennet, the editor of the opinion section, wrote a Twitter thread explaining the decision to run the op-ed, but it wasn’t enough for many Times staffers (Bennet later admitted he hadn’t read the piece pre-publication). The complaints from Times staffers continued to roll in on Thursday; several used a sick day to take the day off in protest, and many staged a virtual walkout.
Running this put Black @nytimes staffers in danger. In solidarity with my colleagues who agree. pic.twitter.com/UfkZkE1xvj — Jenna Wortham (@jennydeluxe) June 3, 2020
Late on Thursday, the Times issued a statement apologizing for the decision — blaming a “rushed editorial process” for an op-ed that “did not meet our standards.” The paper vowed to reduce the number of op-eds going forward and step up its fact-checking process. And at a Friday meeting, Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger unequivocally denounced the piece, saying it “should not have been published.”
One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement. (Times representatives did not respond to my request for comment.)
They argued that elements of Bennet’s op-ed page — including Weiss, deputy editor James Dao (who oversaw the Cotton piece), and columnist Bret Stephens — have elevated trolling the Times’s liberal readership into a kind of raison d’être, one that has led to the publication of poor-quality material and damaged the ability of other staffers to do their jobs.
“Does op-ed care at all about how its actions affect the newsroom whose legitimacy and sweat it trades on in order to sling hot takes? It’s not clear that they do,” one Times staffer told me.
This internal staff conflict, insular as it may seem to outsiders, speaks to a fundamental question not only about the Times but all of mainstream journalism.
It’s not a debate about whether the Times should have conservative voices at all. The op-ed page employs Ross Douthat and David Brooks as staff columnists and regularly publishes outside contributions by Republicans and conservative thinkers, mostly without serious controversy.
Rather, it’s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse. Does every idea that’s popular in power, no matter how poorly considered, deserve some kind of respectful airing in mainstream publications? Or are there boundaries, both of quality of argument and moral decency, where editors need to draw the line — especially in the Trump era?
Why the Cotton op-ed was such a flashpoint
Broadly speaking, traditional newspapers like the Times draw pretty strict distinctions between their news and opinion sections: separate editors, separate contributors, separate missions. These lines are fuzzy intellectually — sometimes news writers analyze news in a way that reads like opinion, sometimes columnists break previously unreported news — but taken very seriously institutionally. The idea is for reporters to appear unbiased and unattached to the provocative opinions expressed by their opinion colleagues, the editorial board (which writes unsigned opinion articles), and the outside contributors they publish.
After James Bennet was hired to lead the Times opinion section, he made it clear that part of his mission would be challenging the Times’s mostly liberal readership with views they don’t agree with. This is a point he’s been explicit on throughout his tenure.
“We owe our readers an honest struggle over the right paths ahead, not a pretense that we’re in possession of God’s own map,” he wrote in a 2018 memo. “That means being willing to challenge our own assumptions; it means being open to counter-arguments even as we advance our own convictions; it means listening to voices that we may object to and even sometimes find obnoxious, provided they meet the same tests of intellectual honesty, respect for others and openness.”
In practice, however, Bennet’s approach to this goal has frustrated not only Times readers but some Times reporters and editors, who believe he’s pushed out low-quality articles on hot-button issues in the name of listening to “obnoxious” views.
The Cotton op-ed provoked such a strong backlash not only because of the incredibly high stakes of the argument for staffers — especially black ones — but also because it crystallized this internal critique of Bennet’s tenure.
The core thesis of Cotton’s argument is that American streets were beset by an “orgy of violence” that “has nothing to do with George Floyd.” Rather, “nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction” — and must be put down by an overwhelming show of force by the US military, as local police are simply not up to the task.
Cotton provides no hard evidence that the rioting has overwhelmed local police; the best reporting suggests the looting is significantly less devastating than the 1992 LA riots (the last time the military was called in to restore order). Cotton asserts that deploying the military would calm the situation, but he does not make any clear argument as to why this would be the case.
In fact, we have good reason to believe that more militarized displays of force from police tend to turn peaceful protests violent. It’s entirely possible the military would make things worse.
Amplifying a call from an official of the ruling party for a federal crackdown of aggrieved citizens exercising rights of assembly & speech was wrong on its face, and made more so by a glaring, gratuitous insult included therein. — C.J. Chivers (@cjchivers) June 5, 2020
This is the meaning of the protest that “running this op-ed puts black New York Times reporters in danger”: If Trump were to send in the troops, it could lead to harm to Times reporters who are covering protests or merely walking near them while black.
Only one line in the piece acknowledges that the protests are primarily peaceful — “a majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants” — and there is no acknowledgment that governors and mayors don’t actually want the military deployed. It’s not clear, reading Cotton’s argument, how the military could distinguish between “peaceful protesters” and “looters.” It comes across as a call to put down the largely peaceful racial justice demonstrations by force, over the objections of local authorities.
It also contained a significant factual distortion. Cotton argued that “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa” were “infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.” There’s vanishingly little public evidence to support the idea that this is a large-scale problem. A May 31 FBI report from the Washington field office found “no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence” in looting. The Times itself reported that claims of widescale antifa involvement in the violence are, by one metric, “the biggest piece of protest misinformation” currently spreading in reports on the protests.
The problem with the piece wasn’t just its call for potentially deadly use of force, though that was part of it — it’s that it was bad journalism.
“We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices,” tweeted Roxane Gay, a Times writer and public intellectual who writes about social issues. “[Cotton’s piece] is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist.”
The bigger context for the Times revolt
Since Donald Trump’s election, there have been running discussions in every mainstream media organization about how to cover a man who openly treats them as the enemy. At the same time, subscribing to a paper like the Times has become a kind of performance of resistance for liberal Americans (who can then threaten to unsubscribe from the paper when it publishes a provocative op-ed in Bennet’s section).
There’s a subtle interplay at work between the need to cover the president fairly despite his anti-media tirades, the generally left-leaning tilt of journalists themselves, and the need to hold onto subscriptions in an era where advertising is an increasingly unstable source of revenue.
All of these factors play into the way the Times in general has approached covering Trump and the Republican party he dominates. In this case, many Times staff members believe that Bennet’s attempts to serve as a counterweight to the anti-Trump and anti-Republican incentives have become too heavy-handed. In their view, the Times op-ed section had elevated the provocation of its liberal readers into a value — that the newspaper has been willing to publish even badly argued pieces so long as they’re sufficiently abrasive to a liberal audience, in ways that actively damage the rest of the paper.
Bennet’s 2017 decision to hire Stephens, then a Wall Street Journal scribe who had once written about “the disease of the Arab mind,” is a paradigmatic case. From Stephens’s very first Times column, widely criticized for distorting climate science, to his March 2020 piece about how Woody Allen was a misunderstood victim of cancel culture, he embodied an ethos of “owning the libs” at any cost that much of the newsroom found galling.
Weiss is a similar recent hire. She has a penchant for writing right-leaning culture war pieces, including popularizing the term “intellectual dark web” to describe a group of online writers who challenge liberal nostrums around race and gender. But her writing has also contained analytic sloppiness and factual errors. For example, in a 2018 column on antifa and the left’s purported hostility to free speech, she cited a fake Twitter account claiming to represent the movement. In another column, she misinterpreted the colloquial meaning of the word “owns” in a tweet by a socialist podcast host to accuse him of anti-Semitism.
If the op-ed section were really as siloed from news in practice as it is in theory, this might be a more containable problem. However, the Times’s reputation is a holistic thing — opinion pieces do affect the way people see the paper, and that affects the ability of reporters and editors to do their jobs. (There is also a fair amount of staff movement between the two sides.)
The fallout from the Cotton piece makes the issue clear. Marc Tracy, a media reporter at the Times, spoke with three reporters who say that sources would not talk to them after the opinion’s publication. Freelance journalist Kara Brown turned down an assignment out of frustration with the Cotton piece:
I was asked to write something for the @nytimes today. pic.twitter.com/cgcc7NMxtk — KB (@KaraRBrown) June 3, 2020
The fact that a certain element of the opinion section was not only publishing bad work, but bad work that had this kind of adverse consequences for other staffers, crystallized the long-running frustrations with Bennet’s tenure as opinion leader — prompting the public revolt.
“Internal NYT Slack [a workplace messaging app] was burning up overnight with pretty close to universal outrage at the op-ed and a lot of clearly pent-up frustration with the op-ed side more generally,” a Times staffer told me. “But obviously a lot of people on the op-ed site, especially editors who are people of color, [are] also publicly rebuking the decision to publish it.”
This isn’t a purely ideological issue. It’s a question of professional respect and thoughtfulness about how two sections can work together while still following through on their core missions.
What is the Times revolt really about?
If you don’t have all of this context, it’s easy to see this fight as being some kind of ideological proxy war. You could imagine this as a story of overly woke social justice warriors on the Times staff fighting to suppress the publication of views that they find dangerous, opposed by older staff who understand the importance of free expression and hearing competing views.
Indeed, that’s how Weiss cast it in a tweetstorm sent during a meeting of the site’s op-ed staff:
The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.) — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
The Old Guard lives by a set of principles we can broadly call civil libertarianism. They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives. But it was an incorrect assumption. — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech. — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
I've been mocked by many people over the past few years for writing about the campus culture wars. They told me it was a sideshow. But this was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them. — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
I'm in no way surprised by what has now exploded into public view. In a way, it's oddly comforting: I feel less alone and less crazy trying to explain the dynamic to people. What I am shocked by is the speed. I thought it would take a few years, not a few weeks. — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
It’s easy to understand where Weiss is coming from here ideologically, especially given the prominence of somewhat oblique complaints about putting black staffers in danger in the public discourse surrounding the op-ed. The interpretation, as she says in the thread, pretty neatly confirms her prior beliefs about the dynamics of public life in the era of “woke” politics.
But that doesn’t make it right.
“I am in the same meeting that Bari appears to be livetweeting. This [is] inaccurate in both characterizations,” Max Strasser, an opinion editor, tweeted. “It’s not a civil war, it’s an editorial conversation; and it’s not breaking down along generational lines.”
After Weiss’s tweetstorm, Twitter exploded with Times reporters and opinion writers accusing her of inaccurately describing the internal conversation surrounding these issues.
Bari Weiss is seeing and hearing a different conversation in the @nytimes newsroom than I am. Other NYT journalists will testify to this. https://t.co/BnuRR3zYBT — Edward Wong (@ewong) June 4, 2020
This is such a willful misrepresentation of things and ignores so many of our older colleagues, many who have been with the NYT for decades, who have spoken out. https://t.co/yfNOg52XZ2 — Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) June 4, 2020
Bari, I strongly encourage you to have conversations with your colleagues, especially your black ones, instead of tweeting about them. You have the privilege of directly contacting any of them, yet you choose to reduce your co-workers concerns to a “woke civil war.” https://t.co/CAeIKQA8wY — Lil Uzi Hurt at Home (@lostblackboy) June 4, 2020
also ... b*ri w*iss isnt even in the feedback channel where most of the conversation about that op-ed is happening ... someone just added her ... — Jenna Wortham (@jennydeluxe) June 4, 2020
My own conversations with Times staffers gave the same perception: Weiss seemed to be ginning up this “controversy” largely out of thin air. In Times discussions on Slack, its main work communication tool, the staff appeared largely unified around opposition to publishing the op-ed.
“I’ve seen way over a hundred people posting comments, into the hundreds if you count people posting supportive Slack response emojis, and not one person pushing back,” said one Times staffer. “The idea of a big divide or internal argument just has no basis that I’m at all aware of.”
The brass seem to have sided with the non-Weiss newsroom. Sulzberger apologized for the piece in Friday’s company meeting, as did Bennet. “I’m very sorry for the pain this piece has caused. ... I’m responsible for this,” Bennet said. “We need to interrogate everything [about the op-ed section].”
That’s certainly a productive first step, from the perspective of the Times’s aggrieved workforce. So, too, were Bennet’s comments rebuking Weiss’s tweet thread, saying he “felt betrayed” by the bad judgment.
But while Weiss may have the narrative wrong, that doesn’t mean there aren’t profound ideological questions surrounding the decision to publish the Cotton op-ed.
The best description of the issue I’ve seen is from Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg. In her Friday piece, Goldberg argues that there might have been some value in publishing the piece — not enough to justify its publication, but still some. Cotton’s argument is so abhorrent, so poorly reasoned, that it sheds real light on who currently wields power in the United States:
When I first saw the Cotton Op-Ed I wasn’t as horrified as perhaps I should have been; I figured he’d helpfully revealed himself as a dangerous authoritarian. But as I’ve seen my colleagues’ anguished reaction, I’ve started to doubt my debating-club approach to the question of when to air proto-fascist opinions... It’s important to understand what the people around the president are thinking. But if they’re honest about what they’re thinking, it’s usually too disgusting to engage with. This creates a crisis for traditional understandings of how the so-called marketplace of ideas functions. It’s a subsidiary of the crisis that has the country on fire.
It’s not wrong to write about Cotton’s view or engage with it in some way. It’s actually vital that liberal audiences understand the nature of the modern conservative movement, the degree to which reactionary and authoritarian racial politics occupy its center rather than its margins.
But commissioning an op-ed from the loudest proponent of this view — the Times reached out to Cotton, not vice-versa — does not put the views in proper context. It seems to serve more as a way of shocking readers, of trolling them, rather than informing them. It’s the characteristic problem of the Bennet era, emerging at one of the worst possible times.


vox--2020-06-07--Poll: Americans are more concerned about police violence than violence at protests

It ’ s not just the people protesting in the streets — most Americans are concerned about police violence , and specifically the killing of George Floyd , new polls show .
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday found that a majority of Americans are more troubled with the actions of the Minneapolis police that led to Floyd ’ s death , rather than by violence at some protests .
The poll was conducted among 1,000 people from May 28 to June 2 , just days after Floyd was killed on May 25 by a police officer who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his knee , and early on in the ( largely peaceful ) protests .
Despite some criticism surrounding images of looting and arson , the poll found that only 27 percent of voters thought the violence of protesters was more concerning than the actions of the police and Floyd ’ s death — a contrast to the 59 percent that found the latter far more troubling .
A big caveat : As with much else in American life , there ’ s a stark partisan divide .
Nearly half of Republicans ( 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the protests , while 81 percent of Democrats found the police killing of Floyd a bigger issue .
Opinions differed by race as well .
78 percent of African Americans were more concerned with the police ’ s actions in contrast to the 15 percent that were troubled by the protesters ’ violence .
The gap between the two opinions dwindled among white Americans : 54 percent found the police violence that led to Floyd ’ s death more troubling , while 30 percent were more concerned with violent protests .
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans are more bothered by police brutality — which could explain the strong support for police reform measures revealed in another recent survey .
The poll , conducted by YouGov from May 29 to 30 among 1,060 people , showed that 67 percent of Americans supported banning any type of neck restraints , which was a police tactic used when Floyd died .
Implementing an early warning system to identify problematic officers was also popular among 80 percent of Americans .
The most supported reform measure was training officers on deescalation tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans .
And while police may have historically been popular among Americans , these polls could indicate that their popularity might be faltering due to the recent waves of protest .
A survey of over 6,000 people from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape found that the favorability figures for the police plunged 10 percent in one week — 66 percent to 56 percent — just days after Floyd ’ s death .
“ This is a unique moment in American history , ” Robert Griffin , research director for the Democracy Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Daily News .
“ To see shifts like this really speaks to what a monumental event these protests have been.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

It’s not just the people protesting in the streets — most Americans are concerned about police violence, and specifically the killing of George Floyd, new polls show.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday found that a majority of Americans are more troubled with the actions of the Minneapolis police that led to Floyd’s death, rather than by violence at some protests. The poll was conducted among 1,000 people from May 28 to June 2, just days after Floyd was killed on May 25 by a police officer who pinned him down by the neck with his knee, and early on in the (largely peaceful) protests.
Despite some criticism surrounding images of looting and arson, the poll found that only 27 percent of voters thought the violence of protesters was more concerning than the actions of the police and Floyd’s death — a contrast to the 59 percent that found the latter far more troubling. A big caveat: As with much else in American life, there’s a stark partisan divide. Nearly half of Republicans (48 percent) said they were more concerned about the protests, while 81 percent of Democrats found the police killing of Floyd a bigger issue.
Opinions differed by race as well. 78 percent of African Americans were more concerned with the police’s actions in contrast to the 15 percent that were troubled by the protesters’ violence. The gap between the two opinions dwindled among white Americans: 54 percent found the police violence that led to Floyd’s death more troubling, while 30 percent were more concerned with violent protests.
Regardless of politics or race, a majority of Americans are more bothered by police brutality — which could explain the strong support for police reform measures revealed in another recent survey. The poll, conducted by YouGov from May 29 to 30 among 1,060 people, showed that 67 percent of Americans supported banning any type of neck restraints, which was a police tactic used when Floyd died. Implementing an early warning system to identify problematic officers was also popular among 80 percent of Americans. The most supported reform measure was training officers on deescalation tactics, which was approved by 88 percent of Americans.
And while police may have historically been popular among Americans, these polls could indicate that their popularity might be faltering due to the recent waves of protest. A survey of over 6,000 people from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape found that the favorability figures for the police plunged 10 percent in one week — 66 percent to 56 percent — just days after Floyd’s death.
“This is a unique moment in American history,” Robert Griffin, research director for the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, told the New York Daily News. “To see shifts like this really speaks to what a monumental event these protests have been.”


vox--2020-06-07--Trump officials say there is no systemic racism problem in law enforcement

Top Trump administration officials rejected the idea of systemic racism influencing law enforcement Sunday amid nationwide protests against police brutality , disproportionate police violence against people of color , and racial inequities .
The comments come as President Donald Trump has repeatedly broadcast his support for law enforcement , even as police have been documented attacking journalists , protesters who have mostly remained peaceful , and bystanders at demonstrations .
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told ABC ’ s Martha Raddatz Sunday morning that protesters ’ anger over George Floyd — an unarmed black man who was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 25 — is “ very real , very legitimate.
” But , he claimed , “ What we see across the board , by and large , is law enforcement doing their job.
” Wolf added the US does not “ have a systemic racism problem with law enforcement officers , ” and said , “ Painting law enforcement with a broad brush of systemic racism is really a disservice to the men and women who put on the badge , the uniform every day.
” Attorney General William Barr echoed Wolf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS News ’ s Margaret Brennan , saying , “ there ’ s racism in the United States still , but I don ’ t think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist.
” Barr went on to say he thinks law enforcement reforms put in place following the civil rights era are working , and that the majority of police officers are “ civic minded people who believe in serving the public.
” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson went a step further , suggesting that not only does systemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field , but that it no longer exists in any meaningful way in American life in general .
Carson told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper that he “ grew up in a time when there was real systemic racism , ” telling a story about a time when he was the only black student in his class , got the best grades , and had to listen to his teacher berate the white students for not trying hard enough .
“ That kind of thing is very uncommon now , ” Carson said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Absolutely .
There were yesterday , there are today and there will be tomorrow .
But that doesn ’ t mean that we shouldn ’ t fight it.
” Despite the assertions of the Trump administration , systemic racism does affect policing As Vox ’ s Sean Collins has reported , massive inequities do remain in the way law enforcement treats Americans of different races .
For instance , a recent analysis by advocacy group Mapping Police Violence found black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police as Latinx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than white people .
The same study also found that black people are 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed when they ’ re killed by police than white people are .
Data also shows little accountability for this disparity .
An analysis of law enforcement records and public databases by Mapping Police Violence found that 99 percent of police killings from 2013 to 2019 didn ’ t result in charges for the officers involved .
Those trends are borne out in the way Americans of different races feel about the police .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ US adults taken from May 29 to June 1 ( with a 3.1 percentage point margin of error ) , 77 percent of white Americans polled said they have “ a great deal ” or “ a fair amount ” of trust in local police , while only 36 percent of African American respondents did .
Still , Trump and top officials are making clear they support state and local police , even as disturbing images and videos of law enforcement officers retaliating against mostly peaceful protesters circulate .
The president himself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times in the last week alone , called upon the police to “ get tough , ” and retweeted multiple tweets from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton , whose advocacy for sending US troops into American cities to quash protests caused a staff revolt inside the New York Times .
Trump also reportedly demanded that the US military send 10,000 active duty troops into cities on Monday , despite opposition from Barr , Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley .
Barr called that report “ completely false ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were put “ on standby in case they were needed.
” Trump ’ s hardline approach has not , however , engendered goodwill among some of those who traditionally support him .
Several top military leaders have spoken out in recent days against the president ’ s support for police retaliation , and conservative televangelist Pat Robertson said his plan to send in troops “ isn ’ t cool.
” He added : “ You just don ’ t do that , Mr. President.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Top Trump administration officials rejected the idea of systemic racism influencing law enforcement Sunday amid nationwide protests against police brutality, disproportionate police violence against people of color, and racial inequities.
The comments come as President Donald Trump has repeatedly broadcast his support for law enforcement, even as police have been documented attacking journalists, protesters who have mostly remained peaceful, and bystanders at demonstrations.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told ABC’s Martha Raddatz Sunday morning that protesters’ anger over George Floyd — an unarmed black man who was killed by a former Minneapolis police officer on May 25 — is “very real, very legitimate.” But, he claimed, “What we see across the board, by and large, is law enforcement doing their job.”
Wolf added the US does not “have a systemic racism problem with law enforcement officers,” and said, “Painting law enforcement with a broad brush of systemic racism is really a disservice to the men and women who put on the badge, the uniform every day.”
JUST IN: Pressed by @MarthaRaddatz on disproportionate rate of deaths of black men and women at the hands of police, acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf claims there’s no “systemic racism problem” in law enforcement but adds some officers "abuse their jobs." https://t.co/upDZ0WZ2lY pic.twitter.com/vl5VWWPJe8 — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 7, 2020
Attorney General William Barr echoed Wolf’s sentiments in an interview with CBS News’s Margaret Brennan, saying, “there’s racism in the United States still, but I don’t think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist.” Barr went on to say he thinks law enforcement reforms put in place following the civil rights era are working, and that the majority of police officers are “civic minded people who believe in serving the public.”
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson went a step further, suggesting that not only does systemic racism not exist in the law enforcement field, but that it no longer exists in any meaningful way in American life in general.
Carson told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he “grew up in a time when there was real systemic racism,” telling a story about a time when he was the only black student in his class, got the best grades, and had to listen to his teacher berate the white students for not trying hard enough.
“That kind of thing is very uncommon now,” Carson said. “Are there still racists around? Absolutely. There were yesterday, there are today and there will be tomorrow. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t fight it.”
“I grew up at a time when there was real systemic racism,” US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson says. “We need to deal with some of the issues in the police departments, but it’s an easy time to do it." #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/qnbSuS47jm — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) June 7, 2020
Despite the assertions of the Trump administration, systemic racism does affect policing
As Vox’s Sean Collins has reported, massive inequities do remain in the way law enforcement treats Americans of different races. For instance, a recent analysis by advocacy group Mapping Police Violence found black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police as Latinx people, and three times more likely than white people. The same study also found that black people are 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed when they’re killed by police than white people are.
Data also shows little accountability for this disparity. An analysis of law enforcement records and public databases by Mapping Police Violence found that 99 percent of police killings from 2013 to 2019 didn’t result in charges for the officers involved.
Those trends are borne out in the way Americans of different races feel about the police. According to an Axios-Ipsos poll of 1,033 US adults taken from May 29 to June 1 (with a 3.1 percentage point margin of error), 77 percent of white Americans polled said they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in local police, while only 36 percent of African American respondents did.
Still, Trump and top officials are making clear they support state and local police, even as disturbing images and videos of law enforcement officers retaliating against mostly peaceful protesters circulate.
The president himself has tweeted “LAW & ORDER” four times in the last week alone, called upon the police to “get tough,” and retweeted multiple tweets from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, whose advocacy for sending US troops into American cities to quash protests caused a staff revolt inside the New York Times.
Trump also reportedly demanded that the US military send 10,000 active duty troops into cities on Monday, despite opposition from Barr, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley. Barr called that report “completely false” on Sunday morning, saying instead they were put “on standby in case they were needed.”
Trump’s hardline approach has not, however, engendered goodwill among some of those who traditionally support him. Several top military leaders have spoken out in recent days against the president’s support for police retaliation, and conservative televangelist Pat Robertson said his plan to send in troops “isn’t cool.”
He added: “You just don’t do that, Mr. President.”


vox--2020-06-07--Minneapolis mayor is booed out of a rally for rejecting calls to defund the police

Protesters from Minneapolis drove Mayor Jacob Frey out of a rally Saturday , chanting “ Shame !
Shame !
” after he rejected calls to defund the police .
It was a striking moment that illustrated just how much the national conversation has changed in the nearly two weeks of protests over the death of George Floyd , who was killed on May 25 by a Minneapolis officer who knelt on his neck .
What was once a niche , radical argument — defund the police — has become a rallying call for protesters who want drastic changes that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ineffective .
While most Americans don ’ t support cutting police budgets ( according to a Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted during the early days of the protests ) , officials are now being forced to at least contend with these arguments .
That includes Frey , who had campaigned on a platform of police reform before he was elected in 2017 .
He was confronted with the question during a rally he visited on Saturday : When a woman on stage gave him a microphone to answer whether or not he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered , “ I do not support the full abolition of the police.
” Following his response , protesters booed the mayor and chanted “ Go home , Jacob , go home !
” and “ Shame !
Shame !
” Later , in an interview with the New York Times , Frey said he still supported a “ deep structural reform of a racist system ” such as prohibiting the police union from collective bargaining .
It ’ s a move that , according to one study , could reduce violent police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists are seeking .
Some of the activists ’ demands have been met : Following Floyd ’ s death , the University of Minnesota , Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board terminated their relationships with the police department .
For Minneapolis activists supporting the abolishment of the police , however , this isn ’ t enough .
MPD150 , a community organization in Minneapolis , wrote on its website that police departments need to be abolished because the system is inherently flawed : “ It ’ s not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , they ’ re actively harmful .
The history of policing is a history of violence against the marginalized.
” The transition would be gradual , according to MPD150 ; resources and funding will need to be strategically moved from the police to community-based models of safety .
“ A world without police would look like safety that is controlled and is led by our community , that focuses on transformation and transformative justice , ” Kandace Montgomery , director of Black Visions Collective and founder of the Minneapolis chapter of Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A world without police means that everybody has what they need to survive and what they need to live healthy lives .
It means we have the money that we need for education , health care , housing , workers ’ rights.
” The Minneapolis City Council has been one of the most responsive to protesters across the nation Mayor Jacob Frey may not support defunding the police , but the movement isn ’ t entirely rejected by city officials .
Activists have at least four out of 13 Minneapolis City Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeremiah Ellison — who has been an outspoken critic of the police ’ s response to the protests , according to the Star Tribune — first tweeted on Thursday , “ We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department .
And when we ’ re done , we ’ re not simply gon na glue it back together .
We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.
” Other members , including City Council President Lisa Bender , joined Ellison ’ s call for defunding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely not discuss the idea until later this year or next , City Council member Steve Fletcher shared an outline of what the future would look like without the police in a Time op-ed .
“ We had already pushed for pilot programs to dispatch county mental health professionals to mental health calls , and fire department EMTs to opioid overdose calls , without police officers , ” he wrote .
“ We have similarly experimented with unarmed , community-oriented street teams on weekend nights downtown to focus on de-escalation .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras and , potentially , our parking enforcement staff , rather than our police department.
” These calls for radical reform aren ’ t welcomed by all Minneapolis residents .
“ What does that even mean ?
Then who provides the public service of policing ?
I don ’ t even know how to answer that , ” Steve Birch , who chairs the neighborhood council of the predominantly white Linden Hills area , told the New York Times .
But it ’ s not just Minneapolis facing demands from activists to dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Garcetti said he ’ d cut up to $ 150 million from the police budget and invest in marginalized communities instead .
Meanwhile , staffers of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an open letter to their boss demanding a $ 1 billion cut from the police department ’ s budget of $ 6 billion .
More significant reform will likely be an uphill battle for activists , considering the historically strong support for law enforcement officers .
The YouGov poll , which was conducted from May 29 to 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 16 percent of Americans want to defund the police .
Meanwhile , 65 percent opposed cutting funding for police departments .
This could change , however , as protests continue — especially among white Americans : in a Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project survey , those who had a favorable impression of police dropped from 72 percent to 61 percent following Floyd ’ s death .
In his op-ed , Fletcher acknowledged that “ reform can be daunting , even scary ” but still invited readers to “ reimagine what public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is watching , ” he wrote .
“ We can declare policing as we know it a thing of the past , and create a compassionate , non-violent future.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Protesters from Minneapolis drove Mayor Jacob Frey out of a rally Saturday, chanting “Shame! Shame!” after he rejected calls to defund the police.
It was a striking moment that illustrated just how much the national conversation has changed in the nearly two weeks of protests over the death of George Floyd, who was killed on May 25 by a Minneapolis officer who knelt on his neck. What was once a niche, radical argument — defund the police — has become a rallying call for protesters who want drastic changes that will dismantle a system they see as racist and ineffective.
While most Americans don’t support cutting police budgets (according to a Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted during the early days of the protests), officials are now being forced to at least contend with these arguments. That includes Frey, who had campaigned on a platform of police reform before he was elected in 2017. He was confronted with the question during a rally he visited on Saturday: When a woman on stage gave him a microphone to answer whether or not he’d defund the Minneapolis Police Department, he answered, “I do not support the full abolition of the police.”
Following his response, protesters booed the mayor and chanted “Go home, Jacob, go home!” and “Shame! Shame!”
Demonstrators booed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey out of a rally on Saturday after he declined to commit to defunding the police. Read more about the protests in the U.S. here. https://t.co/zHv8ocIPXj pic.twitter.com/8WPMnyFXjP — The New York Times (@nytimes) June 7, 2020
Later, in an interview with the New York Times, Frey said he still supported a “deep structural reform of a racist system” such as prohibiting the police union from collective bargaining. It’s a move that, according to one study, could reduce violent police misconduct, but is far from what activists are seeking.
Some of the activists’ demands have been met: Following Floyd’s death, the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board terminated their relationships with the police department.
For Minneapolis activists supporting the abolishment of the police, however, this isn’t enough.
MPD150, a community organization in Minneapolis, wrote on its website that police departments need to be abolished because the system is inherently flawed: “It’s not just that police are ineffective: in many communities, they’re actively harmful. The history of policing is a history of violence against the marginalized.”
The transition would be gradual, according to MPD150; resources and funding will need to be strategically moved from the police to community-based models of safety.
“A world without police would look like safety that is controlled and is led by our community, that focuses on transformation and transformative justice,” Kandace Montgomery, director of Black Visions Collective and founder of the Minneapolis chapter of Black Lives Matter, told the Intercept. “A world without police means that everybody has what they need to survive and what they need to live healthy lives. It means we have the money that we need for education, health care, housing, workers’ rights.”
The Minneapolis City Council has been one of the most responsive to protesters across the nation
Mayor Jacob Frey may not support defunding the police, but the movement isn’t entirely rejected by city officials. Activists have at least four out of 13 Minneapolis City Council members on their side.
Council member Jeremiah Ellison — who has been an outspoken critic of the police’s response to the protests, according to the Star Tribune — first tweeted on Thursday, “We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together. We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.” Other members, including City Council President Lisa Bender, joined Ellison’s call for defunding the police shortly after.
We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.
And when we’re done, we’re not simply gonna glue it back together.
We are going to dramatically rethink how we approach public safety and emergency response.
It’s really past due. https://t.co/7WIxUL6W79 — Jeremiah Ellison (@jeremiah4north) June 4, 2020
Although the council will likely not discuss the idea until later this year or next, City Council member Steve Fletcher shared an outline of what the future would look like without the police in a Time op-ed.
“We had already pushed for pilot programs to dispatch county mental health professionals to mental health calls, and fire department EMTs to opioid overdose calls, without police officers,” he wrote. “We have similarly experimented with unarmed, community-oriented street teams on weekend nights downtown to focus on de-escalation. We could similarly turn traffic enforcement over to cameras and, potentially, our parking enforcement staff, rather than our police department.”
These calls for radical reform aren’t welcomed by all Minneapolis residents.
“What does that even mean? Then who provides the public service of policing? I don’t even know how to answer that,” Steve Birch, who chairs the neighborhood council of the predominantly white Linden Hills area, told the New York Times.
But it’s not just Minneapolis facing demands from activists to dismantle their police departments. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he’d cut up to $150 million from the police budget and invest in marginalized communities instead. Meanwhile, staffers of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an open letter to their boss demanding a $1 billion cut from the police department’s budget of $6 billion.
More significant reform will likely be an uphill battle for activists, considering the historically strong support for law enforcement officers. The YouGov poll, which was conducted from May 29 to 30 among 1,060 US adults, found that only 16 percent of Americans want to defund the police. Meanwhile, 65 percent opposed cutting funding for police departments. This could change, however, as protests continue — especially among white Americans: in a Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project survey, those who had a favorable impression of police dropped from 72 percent to 61 percent following Floyd’s death.
In his op-ed, Fletcher acknowledged that “reform can be daunting, even scary” but still invited readers to “reimagine what public safety means.”
“The whole world is watching,” he wrote. “We can declare policing as we know it a thing of the past, and create a compassionate, non-violent future.”


vox--2020-06-07--Colin Powell says he’s voting for Biden. Other top Republicans may soon follow.

Colin Powell , former secretary of state under Republican President George W. Bush , said Sunday morning that President Donald Trump has “ drifted away ” from the Constitution and that he ’ ll be voting for Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election .
While the 2020 election would not mark Powell ’ s first time backing a Democrat for the nation ’ s highest office ( he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 ) , his comments are remarkable given that they come as a number of other Republican leaders express hesitation or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think he has been not an effective president .
He lies all the time , ” Powell told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper , adding that he ’ s “ close ” to Biden and plans to support him .
“ Every American citizen has to sit down , think it through , and make a decision on their own , ” Powell said .
“ Use your common sense , say is this good for my country before you say this is good for me.
” Powell also said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brutality protests show that he has strayed from the principles enshrined in the US Constitution — and added he ’ s “ deeply troubled ” by the president ’ s willingness to attack those who oppose him .
The president insults “ anybody who dared to speak against him .
That is dangerous for our democracy , it ’ s dangerous for our country , ” Powell said .
Trump reacted to Powell ’ s comments with insults Sunday morning , tweeting that Powell is “ a real stiff ” who led the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He then retweeted JT Lewis , a Republican state Senate candidate in Connecticut , who wrote that “ retired bureaucrats ” hate Trump because he ’ s “ ending the corruption that pads their retirement accounts !
” Sunday is not the first time Powell has publicly criticized Trump — he said he voted for Clinton in 2016 and called Trump “ a national disgrace and an international pariah ” in emails leaked that year .
But in speaking out now , he joins a number of other prominent Republicans who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party .
Republicans and military leaders are questioning Trump as he further slips in the polls Former President George W. Bush and Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah won ’ t support Trump ’ s re-election campaign , the New York Times reported Saturday .
People close to Jeb Bush told the Times he isn ’ t certain how he will vote , and Cindy McCain , widow of Sen. John McCain , is “ almost certain ” to support Biden .
NBC ’ s Kelly O ’ Donnell reports an aide to former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting , calling it “ completely made up.
” The aide added , “ President Bush is retired from presidential politics and hasn ’ t indicated how he will vote.
” Regardless , it seems unlikely Bush would support Trump in his campaign : None of these figures supported Trump in 2016 , but some of those who did — including former Speakers of the House Paul Ryan and John Boehner — have not actively endorsed the president ’ s re-election bid .
The Biden campaign reportedly sees enough of an opportunity with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to launch a “ Republicans for Biden ” group later in the campaign , Democrats close to the campaign told the Times .
And it is not only Republicans who are criticizing the president .
A number of elite military officials — who usually work to remain nonpartisan — have also criticized Trump in recent days over his response to protests against racism and police brutality that have occurred in cities across the country .
Some of his controversial moves include reportedly calling for 10,000 active duty service members to deploy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police and other law enforcement officials to tear-gas peaceful protesters to make way for Trump to take a photo in front of a nearby church .
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis , who resigned from his post in the Trump administration in 2018 over the president ’ s Syria policy and remains widely respected on both sides of the aisle , released an excoriating statement earlier this week .
“ Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We can unite without him , drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society .
This will not be easy , as the past few days have shown , but we owe it to our fellow citizens ; to past generations that bled to defend our promise ; and to our children.
” Former Trump White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said Friday he agreed with Mattis .
And Gen. John Allen , the former commander of US troops in Afghanistan , penned an op-ed in Foreign Policy , writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sympathy , empathy , compassion , or understanding ( for those protesting racial injustice ) —some of the traits the nation now needs from its highest office.
” How widespread the sentiments of Powell , top Republicans , and some military leaders are will be revealed in the fall ; polling , however , shows Biden has held a slight advantage over Trump for months , one that ’ s been rising in the weeks since nationwide anti-racism protests arose after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Colin Powell, former secretary of state under Republican President George W. Bush, said Sunday morning that President Donald Trump has “drifted away” from the Constitution and that he’ll be voting for Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
While the 2020 election would not mark Powell’s first time backing a Democrat for the nation’s highest office (he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016), his comments are remarkable given that they come as a number of other Republican leaders express hesitation or outright opposition to Trump’s candidacy.
“I think he has been not an effective president. He lies all the time,” Powell told CNN’s Jake Tapper, adding that he’s “close” to Biden and plans to support him.
“Every American citizen has to sit down, think it through, and make a decision on their own,” Powell said. “Use your common sense, say is this good for my country before you say this is good for me.”
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he will be voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. “I certainly cannot, in any way, support President Trump this year.” #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/jmiUfDPhl1 — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) June 7, 2020
Powell also said Trump’s response to the anti-police brutality protests show that he has strayed from the principles enshrined in the US Constitution — and added he’s “deeply troubled” by the president’s willingness to attack those who oppose him.
The president insults “anybody who dared to speak against him. That is dangerous for our democracy, it’s dangerous for our country,” Powell said.
Trump reacted to Powell’s comments with insults Sunday morning, tweeting that Powell is “a real stiff” who led the country into war in the Middle East. He then retweeted JT Lewis, a Republican state Senate candidate in Connecticut, who wrote that “retired bureaucrats” hate Trump because he’s “ending the corruption that pads their retirement accounts!”
Colin Powell, a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous Middle East Wars, just announced he will be voting for another stiff, Sleepy Joe Biden. Didn’t Powell say that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction?” They didn’t, but off we went to WAR! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2020
Sunday is not the first time Powell has publicly criticized Trump — he said he voted for Clinton in 2016 and called Trump “a national disgrace and an international pariah” in emails leaked that year. But in speaking out now, he joins a number of other prominent Republicans who are reportedly unhappy with the leader of their party.
Republicans and military leaders are questioning Trump as he further slips in the polls
Former President George W. Bush and Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah won’t support Trump’s re-election campaign, the New York Times reported Saturday. People close to Jeb Bush told the Times he isn’t certain how he will vote, and Cindy McCain, widow of Sen. John McCain, is “almost certain” to support Biden.
NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reports an aide to former President Bush has pushed back on this reporting, calling it “completely made up.” The aide added, “President Bush is retired from presidential politics and hasn’t indicated how he will vote.”
Regardless, it seems unlikely Bush would support Trump in his campaign: None of these figures supported Trump in 2016, but some of those who did — including former Speakers of the House Paul Ryan and John Boehner — have not actively endorsed the president’s re-election bid.
The Biden campaign reportedly sees enough of an opportunity with these and grassroots Republicans that it even plans to launch a “Republicans for Biden” group later in the campaign, Democrats close to the campaign told the Times.
And it is not only Republicans who are criticizing the president. A number of elite military officials — who usually work to remain nonpartisan — have also criticized Trump in recent days over his response to protests against racism and police brutality that have occurred in cities across the country. Some of his controversial moves include reportedly calling for 10,000 active duty service members to deploy to stop them, and using US Park Police and other law enforcement officials to tear-gas peaceful protesters to make way for Trump to take a photo in front of a nearby church.
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who resigned from his post in the Trump administration in 2018 over the president’s Syria policy and remains widely respected on both sides of the aisle, released an excoriating statement earlier this week.
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try,” Mattis wrote. “We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”
Former Trump White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said Friday he agreed with Mattis.
And Gen. John Allen, the former commander of US troops in Afghanistan, penned an op-ed in Foreign Policy, writing that Trump “has failed to show sympathy, empathy, compassion, or understanding (for those protesting racial injustice)—some of the traits the nation now needs from its highest office.”
How widespread the sentiments of Powell, top Republicans, and some military leaders are will be revealed in the fall; polling, however, shows Biden has held a slight advantage over Trump for months, one that’s been rising in the weeks since nationwide anti-racism protests arose after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25.


vox--2020-06-07--Officers who knocked elderly man to ground charged with second-degree assault

Two police officers seen in a viral video shoving a 75-year-old man to the ground in Buffalo , New York , were charged with second-degree assault on June 6 .
The officers , Aaron Torgalski , 39 , and Robert McCabe , 32 , have pleaded not guilty and have been released without bail , but if convicted , they could face a maximum of seven years in prison .
The charges represent the latest of a number of cases in which viral videos showing evidence of police violence have led to disciplinary action .
As Catherine Kim noted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd on May 25 , countless videos have circulated on social media of officers beating , tasing , and violently arresting protesters — and in many of these cases , the officers have begun to face consequences .
In Chicago , the state attorney ’ s office has opened an investigation into a group of officers who were filmed swarming a car in a parking lot , breaking the car windows , and dragging people out .
In Brooklyn , a police officer was suspended without pay after an officer pulled down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pepper sprayed him in the face .
What happened in Buffalo was one of the most graphic videos to come out of the current protests .
On June 4 , local NPR station WBFO tweeted a video showing a group of police officers walking toward an elderly man in the city ’ s Niagara Square while enforcing curfew .
Two officers then push the man back , one using his baton , which causes him to stumble and hit his head on the sidewalk .
Blood pours from his ear as dozens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body .
The video directly contradicted the Buffalo Police Department ’ s earlier statement that the man had been injured “ when he tripped & fell , ” a statement that neglected to mention any interaction with the police .
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown released a statement later that night , writing that he was “ deeply disturbed ” by the video , and that the two officers who pushed the man down had been suspended without pay .
Brown also noted the victim , Martin Gugino , was taken to the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gugino is a community organizer and longtime member of People United for Sustainable Housing Buffalo , whose deputy director , Harper S.E .
Bishop , told the Washington Post , “ Martin shows up for his people , our community , to dismantle systems of oppression .
That ’ s what he was doing tonight at City Hall .
He shouldn ’ t have been met with police violence for showing up and demanding accountability for the ongoing brutality and murder of Black lives.
” New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” while Erie County District Attorney John Flynn said in a press conference , “ They ’ re not trained to shove a 75-year-old man with a baton and knock him to the ground.
” Despite public outcry , other police officers are standing by Torgalski and McCabe Despite widespread condemnation from city and state officials and the general public , however , the entirety of Buffalo ’ s 57-person Emergency Response Team ( ERT ) , of which Torgalski and McCabe were a part , “ resigned in disgust ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ because of the treatment of two of their members , who were simply executing orders , ” said John Evans , the president of the BPD union .
Though they did not quit their jobs , the members have refused to participate in the crowd control duties of the ERT .
And at the courthouse on Saturday where Torgalski and McCabe were charged , dozens of people gathered outside to cheer , many wearing “ blue lives matter ” T-shirts .
The solidarity from fellow police officers is indicative of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on police power and budgets and those who are staunchly supportive of the current system .
“ Defund the police ” has become a rallying cry among protesters , who argue that fewer public dollars should be allocated to a historically racist institution that continuously harms people of color .
Instead , they argue , taxpayer money should go toward social work and less militarized forms of community safety measures .
Cities around the country are now evaluating the effectiveness of their forces and some , like in Minneapolis , are calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , police unions and city mayors have , for the most part , defended current police department budgets .
President Donald Trump has also tweeted that he wants “ a great and well paid LAW ENFORCEMENT , ” while campaigning on promises of “ law and order.
” That divide is one that can be seen at the protests themselves : As New York Times Magazine writer Carvell Wallace argued , “ in a demonstration against police brutality , police are not law enforcement , they ’ re counter protesters.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting , videos like the one in Buffalo have shown that in policing protests against them , police officers can ’ t be considered neutral parties .
“ They are treating protesters like the enemy , lashing out violently , using disproportionate force , and attacking people who pose no threat to them , ” write Vox ’ s Catherine Kim and Anna North .
The irony here is that the biggest threat posed to police officers by unarmed protesters is their ability to film that officer doing something unlawful .
The support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their colleagues reflects a history of police standing by one another even through indefensible acts of violence — one also seen in the cases of Sandra Bland and Eric Garner .
But as recent arrests and suspensions have shown , as long as there ’ s video evidence and platforms on which to share it , the public will hold them accountable .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Two police officers seen in a viral video shoving a 75-year-old man to the ground in Buffalo, New York, were charged with second-degree assault on June 6. The officers, Aaron Torgalski, 39, and Robert McCabe, 32, have pleaded not guilty and have been released without bail, but if convicted, they could face a maximum of seven years in prison.
The charges represent the latest of a number of cases in which viral videos showing evidence of police violence have led to disciplinary action. As Catherine Kim noted for Vox, since the police killing of George Floyd on May 25, countless videos have circulated on social media of officers beating, tasing, and violently arresting protesters — and in many of these cases, the officers have begun to face consequences.
In Chicago, the state attorney’s office has opened an investigation into a group of officers who were filmed swarming a car in a parking lot, breaking the car windows, and dragging people out. In Brooklyn, a police officer was suspended without pay after an officer pulled down the mask of a black protester and pepper sprayed him in the face.
What happened in Buffalo was one of the most graphic videos to come out of the current protests. On June 4, local NPR station WBFO tweeted a video showing a group of police officers walking toward an elderly man in the city’s Niagara Square while enforcing curfew. Two officers then push the man back, one using his baton, which causes him to stumble and hit his head on the sidewalk. Blood pours from his ear as dozens of police continue to walk past his unconscious body.
Just about an hour ago, police officers shove man in Niagara Square to the ground (WARNING: Graphic). Video from: @MikeDesmondWBFO pic.twitter.com/JBKQLvzfET — WBFO (@WBFO) June 5, 2020
The video directly contradicted the Buffalo Police Department’s earlier statement that the man had been injured “when he tripped & fell,” a statement that neglected to mention any interaction with the police. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown released a statement later that night, writing that he was “deeply disturbed” by the video, and that the two officers who pushed the man down had been suspended without pay. Brown also noted the victim, Martin Gugino, was taken to the hospital in “stable but serious” condition.
Gugino is a community organizer and longtime member of People United for Sustainable Housing Buffalo, whose deputy director, Harper S.E. Bishop, told the Washington Post, “Martin shows up for his people, our community, to dismantle systems of oppression. That’s what he was doing tonight at City Hall. He shouldn’t have been met with police violence for showing up and demanding accountability for the ongoing brutality and murder of Black lives.”
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called the officers’ actions “utterly disgraceful,” while Erie County District Attorney John Flynn said in a press conference, “They’re not trained to shove a 75-year-old man with a baton and knock him to the ground.”
Despite public outcry, other police officers are standing by Torgalski and McCabe
Despite widespread condemnation from city and state officials and the general public, however, the entirety of Buffalo’s 57-person Emergency Response Team (ERT), of which Torgalski and McCabe were a part, “resigned in disgust” from the team after the two were suspended, “because of the treatment of two of their members, who were simply executing orders,” said John Evans, the president of the BPD union. Though they did not quit their jobs, the members have refused to participate in the crowd control duties of the ERT. And at the courthouse on Saturday where Torgalski and McCabe were charged, dozens of people gathered outside to cheer, many wearing “blue lives matter” T-shirts.
#UPDATE: Cheers erupt as suspended Buffalo police officers Robert McCabe and Aaron Torgalski leave the @DAErieCountyNY office after being arraigned on one count each of second degree assault. @news4buffalo pic.twitter.com/ima8KxyoZP — Dave Greber (@DaveGreber4) June 6, 2020
The solidarity from fellow police officers is indicative of a growing divide between people calling for restrictions on police power and budgets and those who are staunchly supportive of the current system. “Defund the police” has become a rallying cry among protesters, who argue that fewer public dollars should be allocated to a historically racist institution that continuously harms people of color. Instead, they argue, taxpayer money should go toward social work and less militarized forms of community safety measures.
Cities around the country are now evaluating the effectiveness of their forces and some, like in Minneapolis, are calling for a dramatic restructuring of public safety services. Meanwhile, police unions and city mayors have, for the most part, defended current police department budgets. President Donald Trump has also tweeted that he wants “a great and well paid LAW ENFORCEMENT,” while campaigning on promises of “law and order.”
That divide is one that can be seen at the protests themselves: As New York Times Magazine writer Carvell Wallace argued, “in a demonstration against police brutality, police are not law enforcement, they’re counter protesters.” Though ostensibly there to prevent violence or looting, videos like the one in Buffalo have shown that in policing protests against them, police officers can’t be considered neutral parties. “They are treating protesters like the enemy, lashing out violently, using disproportionate force, and attacking people who pose no threat to them,” write Vox’s Catherine Kim and Anna North.
The irony here is that the biggest threat posed to police officers by unarmed protesters is their ability to film that officer doing something unlawful. The support the officers in Buffalo have received from their colleagues reflects a history of police standing by one another even through indefensible acts of violence — one also seen in the cases of Sandra Bland and Eric Garner. But as recent arrests and suspensions have shown, as long as there’s video evidence and platforms on which to share it, the public will hold them accountable.