Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

A photograph of Michael Brown, who was gunned done by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo. last month. (Public domain)

Michael Brown, According to the New York Times

A New York Times piece (8/24/14)  about Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager shot dead in Ferguson this month by police officer Darren Wilson, has been the subject of harsh criticism because of its declaration that Brown was "no angel." In the version that ran in today's print edition, the Times' John Eligon writes:

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life.

Times editor defended this assessment of Brown by explaining that it was a reference back to the opening scene of the piece, where Brown talks to his stepfather about seeing the image of an angel in a storm cloud. Of course, this reference was plainly obvious to anyone reading the piece.

The question is whether, on the day Brown's family and friends are gathering for his funeral, the paper should be calling his character into question with observations like these:

He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol.  He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

The "scuffle" references an altercation where someone threw a punch at Brown, who apparently did not hit back.  The paper also noted that he "occasionally smoked marijuana and drank alcohol."

To be fair, the piece also presented other aspects of Brown's personality–telling readers that he "regularly flashed a broad smile that endeared those around him."

The observation that Brown is "no angel" is perhaps another way of saying that he was a teenager. But the way the Times raised this struck many people as wholly inappropriate–though, perhaps, not entirely surprising; a few days before the Times piece, cartoonist Matt Bors captured this media tendency  all too perfectly.

As Jack Mirkinson noted at the Huffington Post (8/25/14) , the Times (8/24/14) also presents a profile of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who killed Brown, in today's paper. His standing in relation to the angels is not discussed, nor do we know what kind of music he liked or whether he smoked pot. All we can piece together is that, according to some, he is a "well-mannered, relatively soft-spoken, even bland person…a reaction to a turbulent youth."

Almost a week ago (8/19/14), the Times was raising other questions about Brown–specifically, the actions he took that could have cost him his life. The Times' Frances Robles and Michael Schmidt explained that "witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing." But to critics of that piece,  the Times was giving too much weight to accounts that suggested Brown had in some way attacked the officer.

According to the Times, witness accounts are consistent up to a point: There was some sort of confrontation near Wilson's car, a gunshot is heard, Brown runs away from the car and is shot several times.

But the Times sees some important differences in the witness accounts:

But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.

Being shot after running away from a police officer is very different from being shot as you are about to attack that police officer. So where is the Times getting these accounts? That is somewhat murky:

The accounts of what witnesses have told local and federal law enforcement authorities come from some of those witnesses themselves, law enforcement authorities and others in Ferguson. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

So is it possible that the accounts that justify Brown's shooting come from "law enforcement authorities"? That could very well be the case. As the Times account continues:

Several witnesses have told investigators that Mr. Brown stopped and turned around with his arms up.

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however–including Mr. Johnson–have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired.

From that, a careful reader might conclude that the witness who gives the account most helpful to Wilson is Wilson himself. That could be why the piece was singled out by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell (8/20/14), who summed up his criticism this way:

And in a profound and uncharacteristic flash of irresponsibility, the Times fails to produce a single witness who sharply conflicts with any other witness in the article.

Times public editor Margaret Sullivan (8/21/14) reached a similar conclusion:

The story goes on to quote, by name, two eyewitnesses who say that Mr. Brown had his hands up as he was fired on. As for those who posit that Mr. Brown was advancing on the officer who was afraid the teenager was going to attack him, the primary source on this seems to be what Officer Wilson told his colleagues on the police force.

 Times deputy national editor James Dao defended the piece to Sullivan, at one point calling it "fair and balanced"– a phrase that rings a bell, and not in a good way.


© 2021 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Peter Hart

Peter Hart

Peter Hart is the Communications Director at the National Coalition Against Censorship. Previously at the media watchdog group FAIR, Hart is also the author of "The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly" (2003).

... We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Senate Dems Help Torpedo Resolution That Would Have Blocked $650 Million Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

"My simple question is, why in the world would the United States reward a regime that has caused such pain in Yemen with more weapons," Sanders asked after the vote. "The answer is we should not."

Brett Wilkins ·


Amnesty Scorecard Finds Twitter Failing to Protect Women From Online Abuse

"As our world has become increasingly dependent on digital spaces during the Covid-19 pandemic, it's critical that Twitter meet this moment with demonstrated commitment to improving the online experiences of all users, regardless of their identity."

Jessica Corbett ·


Filibuster Reform for Debt Ceiling Fight But Not Voting Rights or Reproductive Freedom?

"If our senators are willing to suspend the filibuster to protect our economy, they should be willing to suspend it to protect our democracy and our freedom to vote."

Jessica Corbett ·


As Senate Holds Guantánamo Hearing, Biden Urged to 'Finally End This Chapter of Injustice'

"Guantánamo is a centerpiece of the forever wars. It is a shameful symbol of racial injustice, torture, and violations of the Constitution and international law."

Brett Wilkins ·


'Unbreakable Solidarity': Kellogg's Workers Reject Contract That Would Leave New Employees Out of Benefits

"We're not willing to sell our souls for our future employees that are going to work side by side with us but not get the same pay or benefits."

Julia Conley ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo