As far as the NYT goes…
I am going to double back to certain points I have made previously in the many threads about this case. Society has an issue right now in terms of looking at many many things in a very binary way.
And folks get stuck there. And have an incredibly hard time seeing beyond rigid binary social concepts.
In this case, a woman was shot. And that does indeed make her a shooting victim. And she claimed she was bullied previous to the shooting. The alleged perpetrator is a very tall, white male. Who participates at a high level in the sport of dressage (which creates the impression of great privilege). And this man is well connected to leadership of the governing body of the sport.
For some people… they couldn’t get beyond that set of facts. Binary thinking kicked in, and they refused to see the many other layers of this case, and dig deeper.
I think the very first NYT article was most DEFINITELY an example of that thinking. I find it disappointing… the reporter did good work covering the Jimmy Williams and George Morris stories. But this one… well… she ran with one narrative. And didn’t seem to dig at all.
I think this second article involves the NYT SLIGHTLY backing away from their prior reporting. But still… not a deep dive on the real issues involved in this trial.
Sadly, there are still many people engaging in this sort of binary thinking in the comments on the COTH article on their Facebook page. They haven’t listened to the trial. They don’t really understand the facts of the case. But she’s a female shooting victim who said she was being bullied. He’s a big white male, who is privileged, and who had a gun. Case closed… no more thinking or analysis required.
Last thing. This case gives me more faith in our American system of justice. And in my fellow human beings. Many folks on these forums took time to really analyze and try and understand the facts of this case. Many decided to re-evaluate their initial reactions, after learning more about the backstory and the different people involved in the case. And of course, a trial eventually took place, and though it was frustrating to sit through and realize how limited the rules of evidence are sometimes… the jury did NOT engage in binary thinking. They clearly looked at all that was presented to them, and understood the entire situation involved complex human beings, as well as a complex area of law. And the jury arrived at what seems to me like a just verdict.
