Well done. There is too much manufactured outrage today. It may be well intentioned, but it almost always relies on a simplified script which is analogous to a religious dogma. The real story is always much, much more complex. Thank you for writing this.
Well let me tell you as an African American in the deep south. I've been followed in a grocery store where only white people are supposed to shop and asked to leave. As a child in Alabama I wasn't allowed to use a whites only bathroom. Fifty years later, in my town. We still have a black burial site and a much nicer place for whites. There are Real Karen's out there.
Remember Trayvon Martin? His was a local story that went national the very day that Catholic groups across the country were protesting the secularizing excesses of Obamacare. The mainstream media ginned up a lurid (fake) racist narrative to bury that story and protect the president's signature policy. That's how they do.
It is reprehensible what happened to Amy, equally as reprehensible how Christian was uplifted, but their exchange was moronically escalated by both of them. Might he not have obsessed over policing dog walkers (of all people)? Perhaps the free dogs were scaring off his birds. That much, I could understand, but, of course, he went about it in a most threatening, aggressive way. He didn't need to. First moronic move: Christian.
She, on the other hand, might have recognized an unhinged "Karen" in Christian, leashed up her dog, and quickly walked away before it got anywhere near as mutually threatening as it did. He threatened first, but she threatened back. Emergency dispatchers often ask the race of the individual you report, but Amy offered that fact up immediately and with all the intention to retaliate on Christian's threat. Second moronic move: Amy.
The ruination of her life and the uplift of his - however briefly (but writing a DC Comics story for it? Damn, that's pretty nice!) - just shows the inverted nature of the history we live today. In the past, these roles were reversed, and the black man was ruined and often killed. This is obviously much more abhorrent than what happened to Amy, but what happened to her is a karmic comeuppance we can all witness and perhaps appreciate. Hopefully, we grow out of the vengefulness and vilification and judge these situations without an emphasis on race and its digressive, harmful narratives, but I have my doubts.
Look, I agree that this whole things was blown way out of proportion. Nobody deserves to have their life torn apart because of one bad moment that got caught on video. And I wholeheartedly agree with the author that our national obsession with cruelly destroying people calls into question whether or not we really care about the victims of racism as much as we care about hating the racists. This is one of the big things that draws me to the kinds of discussions that Bari tends to have here.
But I found this article odd almost as soon as I began reading it, because a) I knew about the dog treats and what was said, and b) I did not recall them being any kind of a threat. So I went back and skimmed the two articles she linked to. This is from the WAPO article, which the author claims "failed to mention the threat at all":
"When Christian Cooper asked Amy Cooper to follow the rules, she refused. He keeps dog treats on hand for noncompliant pet owners, he said, and tried to toss one to the dog."
This doesn't mention the statement he made, but it hardly gives the impression that he just asked her to leash the dog and she immediately called the police. And from the NYT article, where, once again, she notes that it didn't mention what Cooper *said* until "the story’s closing paragraphs", here's a paragraph pretty close to the beginning describing what he *did*:
"Among Central Park’s birders, he is considered to be a mentor — even to those who disapprove of his preferred tactic to protect the birds’ sanctuary: He deploys treats to tempt unleashed dogs so that their owners tether them. (During the Central Park encounter, he pulled out one such treat for Ms. Cooper’s dog.)"
You can point out that these facts were mentioned outside the main summary of the event. But suppressed? No. And it isn't as though each was buried deep within a long-read article. They were both mentioned within a reasonable distance of the article summary.
Another thing that you will likely glean from reading these articles: the treats were not a "threat". They were thrown; not offered as a lure. They were an attempt to keep the dog from digging up the ground, and to incentivize the owners to tether them. Going too far? Maybe. Threatening?Hardly. You might read the statement as a threat, I suppose, in isolation from the action. In context, it seriously weakens the notion that they were necessary to understand the overall situation, and justifies them being placed where they were.
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I certainly hope Bari at least challenged her on these aspects. One of my biggest problems with these substacks is that they like to take gratuitous shots at the mainstream media. And it's fine that people are here to constructively criticize and call out the media when it seems that they are getting something wrong.
But one should also take note that this is *exactly* why you should not abandon the mainstream media, and should resist the temptation to simply surrender to a different "trusted authority" by coming to these substacks and wallowing in MSM hatred. What makes the mainstream media unique is that *almost everyone*, even its biggest critics, are paying attention to it. That means that it is constantly being subjected to scrutiny, and it's practitioners have a constant incentive to maintain their reputations as being unbiased and fair. They may not always reach that ideal, but when they feel they've strayed from that, they move to correct it (and yes, sometimes overcorrect in the process).
But that's what makes them different from the rest, who are almost exclusively being ingested by their (biased) target audience. In particular, people on these substacks know that they are catering to contrarianism and MSM-skeptics. They have no incentive to do anything other than trash the MSM and portray themselves as the "real truth-tellers". Which is quite the sweet gig - the fact that most of the people reading them are dedicated followers means that very few people are looking at them with a critical eye and calling *them* out, allowing them to easily give the appearance of being flawlessly dedicated to the truth. And believe me, with some of the biggest names here (namely Greenwald and Taibbi), it is just that - an appearance. (Taibbi in particular has been clear that he thinks the MSM is in its death throes and he intends to be part of what he sees as its replacement.) They get plenty wrong, but the people who read them don't come to them as skeptics - they come to be told what they want to hear, and are nearly always rewarded.
As for Bari, I like her and I tend to agree with her on most things, but as this article demonstrates, even she is capable of giving voice to flawed MSM criticism. Again, this article has additional value beyond what I find problematic here, but it demonstrates the danger of substacks and how, far from being the ideal corrective they intend to be, are just as, if not more, vulnerable to siloed groupthink than what they are attempting to replace. In other words, view these as a supplement to, not a substitute for, mainstream news. Without a "mainstream", we are all lost.
I disagree that the dog treats ... thrown, offered, whatever after Mr. Cooper had said, "I'll do what I want, and you won't like it" ... weren't threatening. You write that maybe someone would view the statement as threatening "in isolation of the action." But I think the statement and the action, viewed *together*, could very easily have been seen as threatening by a reasonable person.
Mr. Cooper may have known what his purpose was in throwing the treats, and that they weren't poisoned. Other people (the birders who see him as a "mentor") who were familiar with his tactics may have known this. But how exactly was someone who did not know Mr. cooper or his tactics to know this? How was Ms. Cooper to know this? Poison aside, how was Ms. Cooper to know that the purpose of the treats wasn't to get her dog away from her, and then hurt or kill it (e.g., with a rock or a knife or?)? I'd have had more sympathy for the "not threatening" cast if he had prefaced his action by saying something, ANYTHING, like "Look, the reason the rules are to keeps dogs leashed is because owners don't generally have the vocal control over their dog that they think they have. Here, I'll show you how little control you actually have over your dog, just by offering your dog a treat." But he DIDN'T say anything like that; he said something instead that a frightened person might very reasonably interpret as a threat to hurt his or her pet.
When I read this article, I was reminded, of course, of Nick Sandmann. He was publicly "tried" and determined to be a racist because of the look on his face. I try to remember all of these examples so I don't let my emotions get ahead of my reason and give the media as much trust as I would give a pathological liar. Thank you for poking holes in the "air tight" case presented in the media.
I listened to the podcast story -- and the public, media story definitely has absolutely no context to truth or reality. But, this is the kind of insane interchange could only happen in New York or Los Angeles. Some freaky guy, hanging around waiting for birds, angry and self-righteous as guardian of the "bramble" - a word out of a creepy fairytale...yells at, acts like a lunatic, toward an innocent woman and dog who are minding their own business, just out for some clean doggy runaround fun. And he does this when all New Yorkers have is the ability to be outside sometimes, in the middle of lockdown madness. He has no thought that acting this way, at this time, is mean and gross. And she, when this nut is an asshole, doesn't just collect her dog and move on. She doesn't ignore him and go along her way. Perhaps contacting some kind of authority later and letting them know that a crazy guy is stalking dog walkers in the park and someone needs to investigate and shut him down. If this were most anywhere else in the country, this never would have happened. People don't act this way in other parts. They're not bothered by dogs. They don't have a confrontation with idiots. People are nicer to each other. It's the perfect illustration as to why NY and LA have become so sucky.
I have read the NY Times for about 50 years and just cancelled my subscription. They have not even posted a follow-up article to revisit this story since this report came out on Substack. It is very telling.
I don't think his statement qualifies as a threat. It's far too vague. Plus, he was the one who revealed the remark. Why would he do that if he intended it as a threat? That makes no sense.
My question is this: Why couldn't these two supposed adults resolve this matter when the encounter occurred or shortly thereafter?!? SHE was wrong to let her dog off its leash and should have apologized and moved on. HE was wrong to sit by passively while his sister blew this up into a national news event. I do believe Amy Cooper's punishment was insanely harsh but trying to offload her fair share of responsibility onto him, with some nasty inferences attached, is NOT the right response. This is what's wrong with America right now. Everyone, especially the media, continues to drill down on and re-litigate insignificant micro aggressions or respond in knee jerk tit-for-tat fashion to social media posts as if they're fact-based news stories. We're wasting our lives on a never-ending series of petty squabbles. Enough.
I am relieved that Megan Phelps-Roper has seen the light, but as a former active-duty Navy wife, I must protest any attempt on her part to equate the unconscionable conduct she and her fellow Westboro Baptist members engaged in during those soldier funerals with what happened in Central Park!
I'm well aware that the public may not know the full context of this event and that if we knew more our view of Ms. Cooper might be more favorable but this unfairness is a failing on the media's part more than the two people involved, in my opinion. I mean, we could all spend the rest of eternity just hashing out the misunderstandings in our own families, much less the inconsequential encounters between those we do not know and which do not impact us.
The more I think about this, the more I realize the story is about birds vs dogs. The problem is that birds get no love.
Think about it - if she had been walking a bird, and he accosted her to protect the wild puppies who roam the Ramble, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we would have shipped her right back to Canada without thinking twice and no one would have objected.
This summer I found a nest in my planter with 3 dead baby birds. What did I do? i just tossed them in the can. Thought it was kind of gross. If I had found 3 baby dogs in my backyard, I would have a full on religious ceremony and would have to go into therapy.
People, Birds' Live Matter. The fact that we don't appreciate this is the problem with our society.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that nobody's really mentioned how unnerving it is (and, often, infuriating) to be filmed by someone alleging transgression. They're not filming you because they enjoy pretending they're working for TMZ, they're doing it because the footage is so easily weaponized. It immediately suggests ill intentions.
This was a really well-done piece. It enlightened me to the true story of the Coopers in conflict. Christian Cooper is not perfect, and Amy is not a monster. I still believe she could have handled it differently, but the mob was completely uncalled for. Speaking of the mob that targets people over the internet, I've got many thoughts and observations about it. It seems that being in lockdown for months got people to engage in activities that were destructive towards others but under the guises of "fighting racism" and "anti fascism." It is why the same Twitter mob targeted white high school girls over online posts they disagreed with and their victims got less sympathy than Amy Cooper because they didn't have liberal privilege.
Great portrayal of an incident misperceived through the lens of morality. And I find the comparison to 1990’s Christian morality activism fascinating. In 2020, Amy Shullman,PhD - director of the APA declared a “racism pandemic” in part because of the Cooper incident. After that, the public and institutions played copy cat. I postal mailed a letter to Shullman where I told her that she is hysterical and I pointed out that the female Cooper was in the presence of a physically stronger male while the male Cooper was in the presence of a female rival during the Mee-too era. I personally found the Central Park Coopers’ story to not initially be a news-worthy event except for how the media and activists went into witch-hunt mode. And again- HR really needs to draw a line between work and non-work life.
Lol. "New evidence."
Yeah, if one one has been sexually assaulted at 19, if is perfectly reasonable to call 911 twice and make false claims.
This podcast blew me away (the late comment is because I just subscribed and went looking for this...) Heartbreaking story. Horrifying too.
Well done. There is too much manufactured outrage today. It may be well intentioned, but it almost always relies on a simplified script which is analogous to a religious dogma. The real story is always much, much more complex. Thank you for writing this.
Well let me tell you as an African American in the deep south. I've been followed in a grocery store where only white people are supposed to shop and asked to leave. As a child in Alabama I wasn't allowed to use a whites only bathroom. Fifty years later, in my town. We still have a black burial site and a much nicer place for whites. There are Real Karen's out there.
Remember Trayvon Martin? His was a local story that went national the very day that Catholic groups across the country were protesting the secularizing excesses of Obamacare. The mainstream media ginned up a lurid (fake) racist narrative to bury that story and protect the president's signature policy. That's how they do.
It is reprehensible what happened to Amy, equally as reprehensible how Christian was uplifted, but their exchange was moronically escalated by both of them. Might he not have obsessed over policing dog walkers (of all people)? Perhaps the free dogs were scaring off his birds. That much, I could understand, but, of course, he went about it in a most threatening, aggressive way. He didn't need to. First moronic move: Christian.
She, on the other hand, might have recognized an unhinged "Karen" in Christian, leashed up her dog, and quickly walked away before it got anywhere near as mutually threatening as it did. He threatened first, but she threatened back. Emergency dispatchers often ask the race of the individual you report, but Amy offered that fact up immediately and with all the intention to retaliate on Christian's threat. Second moronic move: Amy.
The ruination of her life and the uplift of his - however briefly (but writing a DC Comics story for it? Damn, that's pretty nice!) - just shows the inverted nature of the history we live today. In the past, these roles were reversed, and the black man was ruined and often killed. This is obviously much more abhorrent than what happened to Amy, but what happened to her is a karmic comeuppance we can all witness and perhaps appreciate. Hopefully, we grow out of the vengefulness and vilification and judge these situations without an emphasis on race and its digressive, harmful narratives, but I have my doubts.
Look, I agree that this whole things was blown way out of proportion. Nobody deserves to have their life torn apart because of one bad moment that got caught on video. And I wholeheartedly agree with the author that our national obsession with cruelly destroying people calls into question whether or not we really care about the victims of racism as much as we care about hating the racists. This is one of the big things that draws me to the kinds of discussions that Bari tends to have here.
But I found this article odd almost as soon as I began reading it, because a) I knew about the dog treats and what was said, and b) I did not recall them being any kind of a threat. So I went back and skimmed the two articles she linked to. This is from the WAPO article, which the author claims "failed to mention the threat at all":
"When Christian Cooper asked Amy Cooper to follow the rules, she refused. He keeps dog treats on hand for noncompliant pet owners, he said, and tried to toss one to the dog."
This doesn't mention the statement he made, but it hardly gives the impression that he just asked her to leash the dog and she immediately called the police. And from the NYT article, where, once again, she notes that it didn't mention what Cooper *said* until "the story’s closing paragraphs", here's a paragraph pretty close to the beginning describing what he *did*:
"Among Central Park’s birders, he is considered to be a mentor — even to those who disapprove of his preferred tactic to protect the birds’ sanctuary: He deploys treats to tempt unleashed dogs so that their owners tether them. (During the Central Park encounter, he pulled out one such treat for Ms. Cooper’s dog.)"
You can point out that these facts were mentioned outside the main summary of the event. But suppressed? No. And it isn't as though each was buried deep within a long-read article. They were both mentioned within a reasonable distance of the article summary.
Another thing that you will likely glean from reading these articles: the treats were not a "threat". They were thrown; not offered as a lure. They were an attempt to keep the dog from digging up the ground, and to incentivize the owners to tether them. Going too far? Maybe. Threatening?Hardly. You might read the statement as a threat, I suppose, in isolation from the action. In context, it seriously weakens the notion that they were necessary to understand the overall situation, and justifies them being placed where they were.
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I certainly hope Bari at least challenged her on these aspects. One of my biggest problems with these substacks is that they like to take gratuitous shots at the mainstream media. And it's fine that people are here to constructively criticize and call out the media when it seems that they are getting something wrong.
But one should also take note that this is *exactly* why you should not abandon the mainstream media, and should resist the temptation to simply surrender to a different "trusted authority" by coming to these substacks and wallowing in MSM hatred. What makes the mainstream media unique is that *almost everyone*, even its biggest critics, are paying attention to it. That means that it is constantly being subjected to scrutiny, and it's practitioners have a constant incentive to maintain their reputations as being unbiased and fair. They may not always reach that ideal, but when they feel they've strayed from that, they move to correct it (and yes, sometimes overcorrect in the process).
But that's what makes them different from the rest, who are almost exclusively being ingested by their (biased) target audience. In particular, people on these substacks know that they are catering to contrarianism and MSM-skeptics. They have no incentive to do anything other than trash the MSM and portray themselves as the "real truth-tellers". Which is quite the sweet gig - the fact that most of the people reading them are dedicated followers means that very few people are looking at them with a critical eye and calling *them* out, allowing them to easily give the appearance of being flawlessly dedicated to the truth. And believe me, with some of the biggest names here (namely Greenwald and Taibbi), it is just that - an appearance. (Taibbi in particular has been clear that he thinks the MSM is in its death throes and he intends to be part of what he sees as its replacement.) They get plenty wrong, but the people who read them don't come to them as skeptics - they come to be told what they want to hear, and are nearly always rewarded.
As for Bari, I like her and I tend to agree with her on most things, but as this article demonstrates, even she is capable of giving voice to flawed MSM criticism. Again, this article has additional value beyond what I find problematic here, but it demonstrates the danger of substacks and how, far from being the ideal corrective they intend to be, are just as, if not more, vulnerable to siloed groupthink than what they are attempting to replace. In other words, view these as a supplement to, not a substitute for, mainstream news. Without a "mainstream", we are all lost.
I disagree that the dog treats ... thrown, offered, whatever after Mr. Cooper had said, "I'll do what I want, and you won't like it" ... weren't threatening. You write that maybe someone would view the statement as threatening "in isolation of the action." But I think the statement and the action, viewed *together*, could very easily have been seen as threatening by a reasonable person.
Mr. Cooper may have known what his purpose was in throwing the treats, and that they weren't poisoned. Other people (the birders who see him as a "mentor") who were familiar with his tactics may have known this. But how exactly was someone who did not know Mr. cooper or his tactics to know this? How was Ms. Cooper to know this? Poison aside, how was Ms. Cooper to know that the purpose of the treats wasn't to get her dog away from her, and then hurt or kill it (e.g., with a rock or a knife or?)? I'd have had more sympathy for the "not threatening" cast if he had prefaced his action by saying something, ANYTHING, like "Look, the reason the rules are to keeps dogs leashed is because owners don't generally have the vocal control over their dog that they think they have. Here, I'll show you how little control you actually have over your dog, just by offering your dog a treat." But he DIDN'T say anything like that; he said something instead that a frightened person might very reasonably interpret as a threat to hurt his or her pet.
When I read this article, I was reminded, of course, of Nick Sandmann. He was publicly "tried" and determined to be a racist because of the look on his face. I try to remember all of these examples so I don't let my emotions get ahead of my reason and give the media as much trust as I would give a pathological liar. Thank you for poking holes in the "air tight" case presented in the media.
I listened to the podcast story -- and the public, media story definitely has absolutely no context to truth or reality. But, this is the kind of insane interchange could only happen in New York or Los Angeles. Some freaky guy, hanging around waiting for birds, angry and self-righteous as guardian of the "bramble" - a word out of a creepy fairytale...yells at, acts like a lunatic, toward an innocent woman and dog who are minding their own business, just out for some clean doggy runaround fun. And he does this when all New Yorkers have is the ability to be outside sometimes, in the middle of lockdown madness. He has no thought that acting this way, at this time, is mean and gross. And she, when this nut is an asshole, doesn't just collect her dog and move on. She doesn't ignore him and go along her way. Perhaps contacting some kind of authority later and letting them know that a crazy guy is stalking dog walkers in the park and someone needs to investigate and shut him down. If this were most anywhere else in the country, this never would have happened. People don't act this way in other parts. They're not bothered by dogs. They don't have a confrontation with idiots. People are nicer to each other. It's the perfect illustration as to why NY and LA have become so sucky.
I have read the NY Times for about 50 years and just cancelled my subscription. They have not even posted a follow-up article to revisit this story since this report came out on Substack. It is very telling.
I don't think his statement qualifies as a threat. It's far too vague. Plus, he was the one who revealed the remark. Why would he do that if he intended it as a threat? That makes no sense.
My question is this: Why couldn't these two supposed adults resolve this matter when the encounter occurred or shortly thereafter?!? SHE was wrong to let her dog off its leash and should have apologized and moved on. HE was wrong to sit by passively while his sister blew this up into a national news event. I do believe Amy Cooper's punishment was insanely harsh but trying to offload her fair share of responsibility onto him, with some nasty inferences attached, is NOT the right response. This is what's wrong with America right now. Everyone, especially the media, continues to drill down on and re-litigate insignificant micro aggressions or respond in knee jerk tit-for-tat fashion to social media posts as if they're fact-based news stories. We're wasting our lives on a never-ending series of petty squabbles. Enough.
I am relieved that Megan Phelps-Roper has seen the light, but as a former active-duty Navy wife, I must protest any attempt on her part to equate the unconscionable conduct she and her fellow Westboro Baptist members engaged in during those soldier funerals with what happened in Central Park!
I'm well aware that the public may not know the full context of this event and that if we knew more our view of Ms. Cooper might be more favorable but this unfairness is a failing on the media's part more than the two people involved, in my opinion. I mean, we could all spend the rest of eternity just hashing out the misunderstandings in our own families, much less the inconsequential encounters between those we do not know and which do not impact us.
Congratulations for this outstanding podcast! Regardless of the subject, which was highly interesting, this was state of the art.
The more I think about this, the more I realize the story is about birds vs dogs. The problem is that birds get no love.
Think about it - if she had been walking a bird, and he accosted her to protect the wild puppies who roam the Ramble, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we would have shipped her right back to Canada without thinking twice and no one would have objected.
This summer I found a nest in my planter with 3 dead baby birds. What did I do? i just tossed them in the can. Thought it was kind of gross. If I had found 3 baby dogs in my backyard, I would have a full on religious ceremony and would have to go into therapy.
People, Birds' Live Matter. The fact that we don't appreciate this is the problem with our society.
Keep bringing the satire, Howard B.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that nobody's really mentioned how unnerving it is (and, often, infuriating) to be filmed by someone alleging transgression. They're not filming you because they enjoy pretending they're working for TMZ, they're doing it because the footage is so easily weaponized. It immediately suggests ill intentions.
This was a really well-done piece. It enlightened me to the true story of the Coopers in conflict. Christian Cooper is not perfect, and Amy is not a monster. I still believe she could have handled it differently, but the mob was completely uncalled for. Speaking of the mob that targets people over the internet, I've got many thoughts and observations about it. It seems that being in lockdown for months got people to engage in activities that were destructive towards others but under the guises of "fighting racism" and "anti fascism." It is why the same Twitter mob targeted white high school girls over online posts they disagreed with and their victims got less sympathy than Amy Cooper because they didn't have liberal privilege.
Great portrayal of an incident misperceived through the lens of morality. And I find the comparison to 1990’s Christian morality activism fascinating. In 2020, Amy Shullman,PhD - director of the APA declared a “racism pandemic” in part because of the Cooper incident. After that, the public and institutions played copy cat. I postal mailed a letter to Shullman where I told her that she is hysterical and I pointed out that the female Cooper was in the presence of a physically stronger male while the male Cooper was in the presence of a female rival during the Mee-too era. I personally found the Central Park Coopers’ story to not initially be a news-worthy event except for how the media and activists went into witch-hunt mode. And again- HR really needs to draw a line between work and non-work life.