I plan on listening later today, but one quick comment on the sub-title: "When homelessness, mental illness, and vigilantism collide on the subway."
I strongly disagree with the use of 'vigilantism' in this case. The root word, vigilante, is defined as follows:
vigilante
vĭj″ə-lăn′tē
noun
A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
A member of a vigilance committee.
A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
Not one of those apply in this case and it's use exposes a bias on the part of the author.
***************
ETA:
I've finally had the chance to listen to this episode and I found it extremely nuanced, honest and fair, much to my surprise based on the description in the title and the above article. I highly recommend everyone listen.
I stand by my OP, this was not the act of of a vigilante. A vigilante is someone on a horse, with a rope, actively looking for a victim...
This begs the question, why such an incendiary title?
Was it because of an inherent bias on the part of the host/author? If that's the case then how do you explain the nuanced conversation?
Was it to generate clicks and comments? If that's the case then, as others have said, I question the editorial path of TFP. You're no better than CNN in that case.
I listened to the podcast. The repeated use of vigilante and its derivative forms was wholly inappropriate. The rampant bias conveyed by its use was palpable.
Note, finding the repeated use of vigilante wrong (in the headline no less) rests not on a left or right wing analysis but on a "news ought to be as neutral and as accurate as possible" viewpoint. In this instance, Honestly and The Free Press utterly failed in this regard.
That's what immediately jumped out at me too. I don't listen to these pieces, but just from that it was clear that this is just another biased leftist propaganda piece pretending to be even-handed.
Much of what passes for journalism these days is just regurgitation of tweets or other inconsequential opinion. But that is a problem and those who would do better should. Words matter.
Totally agree, Kings Full. Mr. Perry, with help from 2 others (one was Black) stepped in to restrain a deranged man - why skin color matters here is more Left Woke BS! The Left searching for another George Floyd to further divide this Country.
WHY Mr. Perry’s PAST military service listed as his identifier, rather than his CURRENT college student??
I also want to add, it isn’t the police who failed to do their duty! It is the Liberal Politicians who control the Blue Cities (remember their rally cries “Defund Police”) who have failed Mr. Neely and the citizens!!
How many times had Neely been arrested, but Liberal DAs & Judges let him go back out into the street/subway to harass and terrorize the public!
Some honesty here would be appreciated, and necessary if a solution can truly be determined.
I almost want to think that the wrong-headed use of 'vigilante' was because the author has internalized the progressive attitude against any form of self-defense. I note these kinds of things but am not surprised.
The alternative explanation - that it was purposefully chosen to spark outrage and clicks/replies here - makes me concerned for the editorial path of this site.
I saw vigilantism in the title and scanned the description to see what speaker listed would justify the use of such an inflammatory and inaccurate term.. Believe me, I won’t waste any time listening.
Try not to react. This is a complex issue made more complex by making assumptions. To cut through, can we agree that existing government policy is flawed and some politicians are politicizing this flaw for their own personal gain instead of doing something about it. This case should not be decided by the courts - it should be addressed by change in the system so something like this does not happen again. I don’t care what you call it - vigilantism or heroism - it should not have had to happen and it did.
I was just about to say the exact same thing. To me, someone who steps up to protect people is not a vigilante...he or she is a protector...a selfless person...maybe a hero.
Will listen to the discussion, but that term leaped out at me, too.
Yeah, Bari Weiss is so full of herself with her sanctimony. She obviously needs an editor ... oh, wait, she IS the editor.
I jumped at reading that word - vigilantism - in the subhead. It is really insane usage here: a train car full of citizens going about their days a madman enters and begins to threaten folks, a former Marine steps forward to protect people. And Weiss calls it "vigilantism"?
Really, Bari Weiss, you are just a girl from Pittsburgh, not a public intellectual. You need to take your attitude down a notch. Or two.
"Really, Bari Weiss, you are just a girl from Pittsburgh, not a public intellectual. You need to take your attitude down a notch. Or two."
Or, you could find a blog more to your taste, rather than take sanctimonious potshots at the proprietress. This is her space, so she gets to run what she wants.
He has every right to opine. I have every right to opine that calling her belittling names is juvenile and if he thinks so little of her he might be happier reading other blogs.
You have to see it from her perspective. Bari is a life long and devoted Leftist, she just isn't radical enough for the modern neo-Marxist Left and was thus excommunicated.
As she remains to the left of center though, a pity propaganda manifesto such as this is something I would still expect her to embrace.
Which is not to suggest in any way this is quality journalism. It's pure reactionary crap which belongs in the pages of Jacobin or Mother Jones. Or the NYT.
Hi Rosemarie MacAllister. First, I feel a kinship to your last name, which is my wife’s maiden surname.
Secondly, I just completed the podcast, and you are correct- it’s well done. Especially liked Rafael Mangual‘s thoughts. Plus that Kat called out the stupidity of Cortez’s and Tlaib’s race bating idioticy. That those two fools have been re-elected compounds the divisiveness gripping our politics.
The podcast, which was not led by Bari, was opposite to the written intro, which helps both our comments. Mine, that whoever approved Eli’s written intro - I assume Bari - decided that divisive language would help drive traffic; and yours, listen to the podcast and then make your comments. Had the written intro mimicked the podcast, I’d bet the initial comments from so many would have been very different.
I do a lot of picking and choosing these days about what news and commentary I give time to. If your suggestion here is correct, it backfired with me because I don’t waste my time on stupid takes and the headline made it sound like this would be exactly that. I agree that Bari--or someone--needs to do a better job with language. Clickbait—if that's what this title is—should not be the goal of a serious news outlet. Providing all the relevant facts impartially is good journalism.
That said, I’m glad the podcast did not live down to its intro title. I came directly to the comment section to try to find out that info, so thanks Rosemarie and Michael for that.
I get it now. She changed from Common Sense to Free Press. Common Sense was too constrained to impart the liberal bias ingrained from so many years in her circles. Free Press fits the all the news fit to print narrative.
Either Bari agreed with vigilantism as the correct description, or knew using it would spark so many clicks; maybe both actually.
I plan on listening later today, but one quick comment on the sub-title: "When homelessness, mental illness, and vigilantism collide on the subway."
I strongly disagree with the use of 'vigilantism' in this case. The root word, vigilante, is defined as follows:
vigilante
vĭj″ə-lăn′tē
noun
A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
A member of a vigilance committee.
A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
Not one of those apply in this case and it's use exposes a bias on the part of the author.
***************
ETA:
I've finally had the chance to listen to this episode and I found it extremely nuanced, honest and fair, much to my surprise based on the description in the title and the above article. I highly recommend everyone listen.
I stand by my OP, this was not the act of of a vigilante. A vigilante is someone on a horse, with a rope, actively looking for a victim...
This begs the question, why such an incendiary title?
Was it because of an inherent bias on the part of the host/author? If that's the case then how do you explain the nuanced conversation?
Was it to generate clicks and comments? If that's the case then, as others have said, I question the editorial path of TFP. You're no better than CNN in that case.
I think it's pretty clear the author meant a civilian who handled a situation best handled by a police officer. Nothing deeper than that.
Then that's what he should have said! Words have meaning and they matter.
The liberal gaslighting continues unabated by facts or reason.
I totally agree...the first thing I thought about was the use of the word "vigilantism". Editorialism
Amen
I stopped at the title.. It's not worth my time.
Vigilante is someone who actively tracks criminals
Using the author’s logic - If you live in one of the lefty controlled cities, you’re one of the following:
1. A woke dipshit that despises everyone except for #2 and #3 below.
2. A drug induced and/or mentally insane person wandering the streets, wreaking havoc.
3. A thug.
4. Not a cop.
5. A right-wing vigilante.
I listened to the podcast. The repeated use of vigilante and its derivative forms was wholly inappropriate. The rampant bias conveyed by its use was palpable.
Note, finding the repeated use of vigilante wrong (in the headline no less) rests not on a left or right wing analysis but on a "news ought to be as neutral and as accurate as possible" viewpoint. In this instance, Honestly and The Free Press utterly failed in this regard.
It is propaganda. It was used with Kyle Rittenhouse too.
That's what immediately jumped out at me too. I don't listen to these pieces, but just from that it was clear that this is just another biased leftist propaganda piece pretending to be even-handed.
I think the author was using this term only in the sense that many in the media have labeled the former marine a vigilante.
Perhaps. But then "vigilante" should have been in scare quotes to show it wasn't the author/editors' take.
Much of what passes for journalism these days is just regurgitation of tweets or other inconsequential opinion. But that is a problem and those who would do better should. Words matter.
Totally agree, Kings Full. Mr. Perry, with help from 2 others (one was Black) stepped in to restrain a deranged man - why skin color matters here is more Left Woke BS! The Left searching for another George Floyd to further divide this Country.
WHY Mr. Perry’s PAST military service listed as his identifier, rather than his CURRENT college student??
I also want to add, it isn’t the police who failed to do their duty! It is the Liberal Politicians who control the Blue Cities (remember their rally cries “Defund Police”) who have failed Mr. Neely and the citizens!!
How many times had Neely been arrested, but Liberal DAs & Judges let him go back out into the street/subway to harass and terrorize the public!
Some honesty here would be appreciated, and necessary if a solution can truly be determined.
A solution is the last thing the Democrats want!
Agree.
I almost want to think that the wrong-headed use of 'vigilante' was because the author has internalized the progressive attitude against any form of self-defense. I note these kinds of things but am not surprised.
The alternative explanation - that it was purposefully chosen to spark outrage and clicks/replies here - makes me concerned for the editorial path of this site.
Well said.
I saw vigilantism in the title and scanned the description to see what speaker listed would justify the use of such an inflammatory and inaccurate term.. Believe me, I won’t waste any time listening.
Don't swallow any of the sand. An ostrich might have preceded you.
Try not to react. This is a complex issue made more complex by making assumptions. To cut through, can we agree that existing government policy is flawed and some politicians are politicizing this flaw for their own personal gain instead of doing something about it. This case should not be decided by the courts - it should be addressed by change in the system so something like this does not happen again. I don’t care what you call it - vigilantism or heroism - it should not have had to happen and it did.
Agreed. It is, to warp GW Bush's statement, the legislatures, stupid.
I was just about to say the exact same thing. To me, someone who steps up to protect people is not a vigilante...he or she is a protector...a selfless person...maybe a hero.
Will listen to the discussion, but that term leaped out at me, too.
Yeah, Bari Weiss is so full of herself with her sanctimony. She obviously needs an editor ... oh, wait, she IS the editor.
I jumped at reading that word - vigilantism - in the subhead. It is really insane usage here: a train car full of citizens going about their days a madman enters and begins to threaten folks, a former Marine steps forward to protect people. And Weiss calls it "vigilantism"?
Really, Bari Weiss, you are just a girl from Pittsburgh, not a public intellectual. You need to take your attitude down a notch. Or two.
I agree!
"Really, Bari Weiss, you are just a girl from Pittsburgh, not a public intellectual. You need to take your attitude down a notch. Or two."
Or, you could find a blog more to your taste, rather than take sanctimonious potshots at the proprietress. This is her space, so she gets to run what she wants.
And her subscribers get to opine. Which is what he did.
He has every right to opine. I have every right to opine that calling her belittling names is juvenile and if he thinks so little of her he might be happier reading other blogs.
You do indeed. The opening is what it is all about here.😉
Yes indeed!
You have to see it from her perspective. Bari is a life long and devoted Leftist, she just isn't radical enough for the modern neo-Marxist Left and was thus excommunicated.
As she remains to the left of center though, a pity propaganda manifesto such as this is something I would still expect her to embrace.
Which is not to suggest in any way this is quality journalism. It's pure reactionary crap which belongs in the pages of Jacobin or Mother Jones. Or the NYT.
Bari is not the author. The author is Eli Lake. Bari led the podcast, which is very good btw. Perhaps comment again after you've listened.
Hi Rosemarie MacAllister. First, I feel a kinship to your last name, which is my wife’s maiden surname.
Secondly, I just completed the podcast, and you are correct- it’s well done. Especially liked Rafael Mangual‘s thoughts. Plus that Kat called out the stupidity of Cortez’s and Tlaib’s race bating idioticy. That those two fools have been re-elected compounds the divisiveness gripping our politics.
The podcast, which was not led by Bari, was opposite to the written intro, which helps both our comments. Mine, that whoever approved Eli’s written intro - I assume Bari - decided that divisive language would help drive traffic; and yours, listen to the podcast and then make your comments. Had the written intro mimicked the podcast, I’d bet the initial comments from so many would have been very different.
I do a lot of picking and choosing these days about what news and commentary I give time to. If your suggestion here is correct, it backfired with me because I don’t waste my time on stupid takes and the headline made it sound like this would be exactly that. I agree that Bari--or someone--needs to do a better job with language. Clickbait—if that's what this title is—should not be the goal of a serious news outlet. Providing all the relevant facts impartially is good journalism.
That said, I’m glad the podcast did not live down to its intro title. I came directly to the comment section to try to find out that info, so thanks Rosemarie and Michael for that.
🤑 Harry, not you.
I get it now. She changed from Common Sense to Free Press. Common Sense was too constrained to impart the liberal bias ingrained from so many years in her circles. Free Press fits the all the news fit to print narrative.
Either Bari agreed with vigilantism as the correct description, or knew using it would spark so many clicks; maybe both actually.
Nailed it.