Sigh…….
The New York Times newspaper received a HUGE backlash from the growing public over their shameful article they posted regarding Michael Brown on the eve of his funeral calling him ” No Angel “ …..Oh but its get better!
According to the writer, John Eligon says Brown was ‘no angel’ because of the activities he engaged in prior to his death. He ‘dabbled in drugs’, stole cigars from a convenient store , and then the bonus line ……he took an interest in the rap culture. I guess all of the above mentions was is to be consider despite the fact that Brown was set to begin college in less than 24 hours before he was killed by officer Darren Wilson.
The article read as follows:
” 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. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbed 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 one neighbor. “
Sidebar: Great way to show respect for someone! Interestingly, Darren Wilson has already received 100,000 in financial aid for his pending grand jury hearing trial meanwhile the community of ferguson is still impoverished and will continue to go un-notice because they’ve been deemed to have ‘rough patches’ as the points out,
Well, it didn’t take long for the public to stir up an uproar and call out the NY Times. As one commentator wrote:
” Did @nytimes conclude grown adults Robin Williams or Philip Seymour Hoffman “no angel” bc they ‘dabbled in drugs’? “
Read other comments below:
Clearly Eligon [a black man] did more than his foot in his mouth on this one; he was the chosen ‘bait’ for the bigger hidden agenda of the NY Times to [YET AGAIN] tarnish Brown’s image and now claims to be remorseful of his actions.
NY Times public editor Margaret Sullivan says she thought the phrase was a ‘regrettable mistake’, she also criticized the decision to run the article on eve of Brown’s funeral.
” I understand the concerns, and I get it. Mr. Eligon said. He agreed that ‘no angel’ was not a good choice of words and explained that they were meant to play off the opening anecdote of the article in which Mr. Brownsaw and angelic vision. That anecdote is about as positive as you can get, Mr. Eligon said and went on to say that a better was to seque into the rest of the article might have been to use the phrase “wasn’t perfect”. Hindsight is 20/20. I wish I would have changed that, he said. “
Sidebar: No, NY Times! A better way would have been to NOT publish such an article and or an opinion of a deceased one on the eve of their funeral. SMH!