Did the New York Times inform readers about Rotherham?
5 articles, mostly from 10 years ago, so strictly speaking yes, but really not really
I saw this amusing exchange on Twitter some days ago:
I don't think Mickelson had investigated this claim, it was maybe revealed to him in a dream. But was it true? It could be, so I tried to find out.
Google allows one to search for pages on a particular domain, which sort of allows us to count articles mentioning anything. So let's first start with “Emmett Till”:
About 670 results. It is curious that it's an approximate number. I tried to get a final number by clicking through the pages of results. However, every time you click a new page of results, you get slightly different numbers. Apparently, Google doesn't know how many there are. It may have something to do with the complexity of their database query. Let us use the 670 then as an approximate value. What about Rotherham? Here it gets more difficult:
Alas, there is a football team polluting the results. It's not so easy to avoid it. If one excludes "football" one gets 6 results, 4 in Spanish, and 2 in Chinese (weird!). More accurate is to include "rape", which gives us 10 results:
Of these, however, 4 are from this week, so 6 hits. If one tries "grooming" instead, there are 14 results (the results bar initially claims 56, but there's only 2 pages, and 4 on the second). Of these, 2 are in Spanish, 1 in Chinese, and 1 is about football. Of the genuine 10 hits, 4 are from this week, leaving 6. Of the remaining 5 are about the rapes themselves.
Alternatively, one can use NYT's own search engine. By my count, there are 11 results for "rotherham" + "grooming", and 739 for "Emmett Till". The results are the same after subtracting the articles from last week or other topics (5 articles).
So there we have it. 5 writings about systemic rape of British girls from before this week, and 600+ about Emmett Till, an African American boy who was killed 25,337 days (69 years) ago. Depending on interpretation, then, it seems Mickelson was just about right about what the relative focus of New York Times has been. Granted, of course, that Emmett Till was an American, and Rotherham is in the United Kingdom.
You can decide for yourself how these numbers reflect upon Yglesias' claim.
A great analogous is comparing the number of articles on the hysteria about Canadian and American boarding schools for Indians.
They’ve been out of operation for 50 years, haven’t been compulsory for functional families for 100, and probably had fewer victims over their 100 year history than the rape gangs did in a decade. Amusingly, even ChatGPT concedes that death rates at these schools were LOWER than children in the general population during that period, but that hasn’t stopped the histrionics from the same mainstream media who are now aghast that anyone would discuss industrial scale racialized gang rapes a mere 5-10 years later.
My white, native Southern family, with a history of 350 years there, actively supported desegregation in the early 1960s. So much so that my older brother saw the need to guard his house with loaded guns. I helped him with that, and I also accompanied him to evening organizational meetings in the basement of the 16th Street Baptist Church because our parents thought that, if two people were in his car going home afterwards, my brother would be less likely to be harmed by the police who monitored attendance at the meetings. That church was later bombed by a Klan splinter group, and four children were killed.
Five years on, I was in graduate school and met a Jewish girl from New York City. After we had been dating for a while, she made the comment that, "If my parents knew I was going out with someone from Alabama, they would go ballistic." I had never told her about my family's advocacy which resulted in multiple death threats to my father, my brother, and me. Nor did I tell her in response to her comment. She wasn't a serious enough person to have such a discussion with.
Jewish, e.g., New York Times, propaganda against the South has been relentless since the Leo Frank episode. Yet, anyone who cares to examine historical facts knows that the vast majority of Southerners were not slaveholders, that the Southern States" referenda on secession were rigged against the Unionist voters, that Confederate conscription was unpopular and was increasingly resisted until finally the Confederate armies were forced to surrender for lack of manpower. They also know that Jim Crow laws had dual purposes: to economically disadvantage blacks and to protect whites from black crime. How many times fewer stories has the NY Times done on the hugely disproportional racial crime rates in contrast to stories on the dysfunctional white, lower-class culture (which I have also experienced up close and personal as an owner of rural tracts of land)?
In this age of propaganda, no one can really know the truth about a situation without witnessing it. Of course, in extreme cases the witnessing can be through the videographic type of journalism, as opposed to the Edward Bernays type in which the NY Times specializes. The Gazan genocide is a good example of the former.
Thank you, Emil, for ferreting out the truth in this case.