In its front page profile of Michael Brown, the young black victim shot dead by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, the New York Times describes as "no angel." The article by Annie Waldman for BBC focuses on the profile, the outrage it elicited, and the subsequent response by the New York Times. The article by John Eligon, published on the day before Brown's funeral, describes Brown's life in details. Though the profile is largely sympathetic to Brown, the particular passage that highlights Brown's dabbling with drugs, alcohol and rap music in which Eligon said that "Michael Brown...was no angel" that drew the ire of many online and received critical reaction from other media outlets. Some reacted by recounting their own teenage indiscretions …show more content…
When presented in a vacuum, free of any context and historical background, the two words "no angel" would seem innocuous enough, since that is a factually accurate characterization of Brown, as is for most people. Yet, that is not the case. As Julia Woods writes in the textbook, words have content level of meanings, but more importantly they have meanings on a relational level. Words gain additional meanings and connotations through their past usage. A different article covering the New York Times blunder points out that in the past, people called by “no angel” by the New York Times included mobsters like Al Capone and Whitey Bugler, Nazi officer Erwin Rommel, and the one of the Columbine killers. Given the context, that the media tend to report black victims in less than positive lights and that many already see the release of surveillance video of Brown robbing a store and the revelation that the coroner found traces of marijuana in his body as victim smearing that fits into that larger pattern, the words "no angel" becomes a loaded term, and the New York Times should have been more careful with its words. Another communications concept this article highlights is the idea that people bring fields of experience when they communicate. To someone who is not familiar with the subject, the, whereas for others who, the characterization "no angel" is immediately perceived as offensive and inappropriate. Further, this incident demonstrates that intention does not always translate to the impact in communication. It Is not hard to believe that the writer John Eligon, who as a black man, experienced prejudice and racial profiling himself, set out with the intention of writing a balanced and sensitive profile of Brown and thought that he had done exactly that. The "no angel" characterization was not meant