CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A second night of protests sparked by the police killing of a black man spiraled into chaos and violence after nightfall on Wednesday when a demonstration was interrupted by gunfire that killed a man in the crowd and law enforcement authorities fired tear gas in a desperate bid to restore order.
Within an hour, officials used the city’s Twitter account to confirm the death of the unidentified man, which they attributed to a “civilian on civilian” confrontation.
The mayhem, in the heart of Charlotte’s dazzling Uptown district, was the second night of extraordinary tension in North Carolina’s largest city, where a police officer killed a black man on Tuesday afternoon.
On Wednesday night, police officers, many of them dressed in riot gear and standing in formation, made numerous arrests. A helicopter flew over Uptown, and on the streets below, protesters were heard chanting, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”
The unrest in Charlotte came after two other police-involved deadly shootings within the last week.
First was the shooting of a teenager in Columbus, Ohio, who had been brandishing a BB gun. Two days later, on Friday, was the shooting death in Tulsa, Okla., of a man who had his hands above his head before an officer opened fire.
And then it was Charlotte, where Keith L. Scott, 43, black like the other two, was shot by a police officer in a parking space marked “Visitor” outside an unremarkable apartment complex on Tuesday. On Wednesday that parking space was both the site of a fatal shooting and a shrine, and Charlotte was a city on edge, the latest to play a role in what feels like a recurring, seemingly inescapable tape loop of American tragedy.
“To see this happen multiple times — just time after time — it’s depressing, man,” said Tom Jackson, 25, who works with mentally disabled people. He didn’t know Mr. Scott but was drawn here nonetheless, one of many strangers and friends who came to pay their respects and make sense of their sorrow.
In addition to the fatal attacks on police officers in Baton Rouge and Dallas, it was another grim snapshot of America’s continuing crisis in black and blue, this moment amplified by presidential politics. And as usual, there was very little consensus on what went wrong and how to fix it.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Kerr Putney, chief of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, said officers had found the gun that the police said Mr. Scott had brandished before an officer fatally shot him and were examining police video of the encounter that unfolded as Mr. Scott stepped out of a car.
Family members of Mr. Scott have said that he was unarmed and was holding only a book. Chief Putney said Wednesday morning, “We did not find a book.”
Reeling from a night of protest and looting, Charlotte was uneasy on Wednesday and bracing for more. There was also a palpable sense of frustration that a solution to the problem — an antidote for what Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the family of Terence Crutcher, 40, the man shot in Tulsa, recently called “an epidemic” — would not be soon coming. Some activists who spoke at a news conference called for an economic boycott of Charlotte.
Gov. Pat McCrory, a former Charlotte mayor, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that state officials would “do everything we can to support the mayor and the police chief in their efforts to keep the community calm and to get this situation resolved.”
The response of B.J. Murphy, an African-American activist here, could not have been more different: “Everybody in Charlotte should be on notice that black people, today, we’re tired of this,” he said, adding an epithet. “We’re tired of being killed and nobody saying nothing. We’re tired of our political leaders going along to get along; they’re so weak, they don’t have no sympathy for our grief. And we want justice.”
All three shootings are under investigation, and are rife with questions and complications. The police in Columbus said that the BB gun wielded by 13-year-old Tyre King was built to look nearly identical to a Smith & Wesson Military & Police semiautomatic pistol. Mayor Andrew J. Ginther blamed the shooting, in part, on Americans’ “easy access to guns, whether they are firearms or replicas.”
In Tulsa, the police said investigators found the drug PCP in Mr. Crutcher’s S.U.V. The drug is known to induce erratic behavior in some users. But Mr. Crump, who is representing Mr. Crutcher’s family, said the discovery of the drug, if true, would not justify the deadly shooting.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Crutcher’s father, the Rev. Joey Crutcher, said his son had marched in protest of earlier police killings of blacks and had thought thoroughly about how to protect himself during interactions with police officers.
They had planned to go to a church event aimed at teaching people how behave around the police and avoid becoming another hashtag shared on social media by Black Lives Matter protesters.
“I never thought this would happen to my family,” Mr. Crutcher said, adding that he had counseled his son all his life about how to behave around the police.
“I said, ‘Whenever you’re stopped by a police and you’re in that situation, raise your hands up, always let them see your hands, let them see that you are not going for a gun.’ And that is what Terence was doing. I said, ‘Always put your hands on your car.’ I made that specific, ‘your car.’ And that’s what Terence was walking to do on his car so that they could see his hands.”
Here in Charlotte, officials urged calm and reiterated their position that the Tuesday afternoon shooting of Mr. Scott occurred after he posed an “imminent deadly threat” to police officers.
But at the University City apartment complex where Mr. Scott was killed, critics of the city government suggested that investigators were covering up a murder, and cast doubts on the police account.
John Barnett, a civil rights activist in Charlotte, said during a raucous news conference near the site of the shooting that Mr. Scott had been waiting for his son to arrive home from school.
“The truth of the matter is, he didn’t point that gun,” Mr. Barnett said. “Did he intend to really sit in a vehicle, waiting on his son to get home from school and then plot to shoot a cop if they pulled up on him?”
Adding to an atmosphere loaded with suspicion and mistrust, residents of the apartment complex gave varying accounts of Mr. Scott’s death.
Some differed from the police on which officer fired the shots, and others said that no one had tried to administer CPR on Mr. Scott as officials had said.
“Since black lives do not matter for this city, then our black dollars should not matter,” said Mr. Murphy, the activist. “We’re watching a modern-day lynching on social media, on television and it is affecting the psyche of black people.”
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said Wednesday that the Justice Department “is aware of, and we are assessing, the incident that led to the death of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte.”
Responding to another police shooting, the state’s attorney in Baltimore County, Md., Scott D. Shellenberger, announced Wednesday that no charges would be filed against any of the officers involved in the Aug. 1 shooting death of Korryn Gaines or the shooting of her 5-year-old son.
In Charlotte, Chief Putney said protesters blocked Interstate 85 into Wednesday morning and looted material from a tractor-trailer before setting the cargo ablaze. Other demonstrators threw rocks at officers, causing at least 16 injuries and damage to several police cars. The police made one arrest and used tear gas to disperse protesters.
The protests had begun peacefully, the chief said, but “when that behavior becomes violent,” officers were compelled to respond more aggressively.
In a statement late Wednesday, Rakeyia Scott, Mr. Scott’s wife, said the family was “devastated” by the shooting of Mr. Scott, whom she described as “a loving husband, father, brother and friend.”
Ms. Scott said that after hearing the police chief’s remarks, the family had “more questions than answers about Keith’s death.” She also asked protesters to remain peaceful.
At a campaign rally in Orlando, Fla., Hillary Clinton spoke about the shootings here and in Tulsa.
“There is still much we don’t know about what happened in both incidents, but we do know that we have two more names to add to a list of African-Americans killed by police officers in these encounters,’’ she said.
“It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable. We also saw the targeting of police officers in Philadelphia last week. And last night in Charlotte, 12 officers were injured in demonstrations following Keith Scott’s death. Every day police officers are serving with courage, honor and skill.”
Her Republican rival, Donald J. Trump, reacted on Twitter. “Hopefully the violence & unrest in Charlotte will come to an immediate end,” he wrote. “To those injured, get well soon. We need unity & leadership.”
Unity, thus far, has been in short supply. On Friday, Mr. Trump earned the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. But polls show that his support among African-Americans is negligible, even though he has singled them out in promising to solve the ills of poverty and violence that he has characterized as plaguing black neighborhoods.
On Wednesday, Mr. Jackson, the man who came here to mourn, was not thinking about the candidates of today, but the candidates of the future, and potential squandered by the lives cut short.
The police, he said, “are out here killing people, and they don’t even know their backgrounds,” he said. “They could be killing the next president.”
Correction: September 21, 2016
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect time for the shooting. It occurred just before 4 p.m., not after 4.
Emily Harris contributed reporting from Charlotte, and Yamiche Alcindor, Niraj Chokshi and Timothy Williams from New York. Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
Mostrando postagens com marcador New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
quarta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2016
quarta-feira, 17 de junho de 2015
"...o futuro dos jornais parece estar no passado antes da modernidade..." / Observatório da Imprensa / Jota Alcides
IMPRENSA EM QUESTÃO > IMPRENSA & INTERNET
A estratégia do ‘New York Times’
Como publisher do The New York Times, um dos maiores e mais influentes jornais do mundo, Arthur Sulzberger merece todo o respeito. Afinal, o jornalão que dirige, com 1,8 milhão de exemplares e quase 1 milhão de assinantes digitais, é o de maior prestígio no planeta. Mas, isso não significa que seus conceitos e propostas sobre o jornalismo pós-internet emitidos no recente Congresso da Anpa-Associação dos Editores de Jornais Americanos, em Washington, sejam irrefutáveis ou inquestionáveis.
Como modesto jornalista brasileiro, ex-editor-chefe de dois importantes jornais de referência nacional, o Jornal do Commércio, do Recife, e o Correio Braziliense, de Brasília, conheço a importância da Anpa pois já participei de seus encontros em Las Vegas, New Orleans e San Francisco. Daí, sou motivado ao questionamento do modelo estratégico de Arthur Sulzberger para o presente e o futuro do grande jornal norte-americano publicado desde 1851.
De acordo com seu plano estratégico para o NYTimes, nestes tempos de turbilhão digital e de crise aguda dos jornais, devidamente destacado por este Observatório da Imprensa, as prioridades agora estão direcionadas para maior presença nas redes sociais, reportagens para celulares e tablets e crescimento internacional do jornal.
Com a experiência e a segurança de publisher do mais famoso jornal do mundo, certamente ele acredita que o aumento da leitura digital vai acabar gerando expansão da leitura impressa. Ora, isso, além de improvável, não resolverá o problema básico da atualidade, que é a falta de atratividade do conteúdo dos jornais impressos. O resultado desse plano está à vista: o NYTimesganhará mais leitores eletrônicos e perderá mais leitores impressos.
Reflexões e provocações
Será mais um equívoco somado a tantos outros acumulados ao longo de mais de um século. Essa crise dos jornais no mundo, sobretudo nos Estados Unidos, agravada agora com a avassaladora e poderosa internet, vem de longe. Desde a chegada da modernidade, no século 20, quando os jornais optaram pelo factual e deixaram de ser produtos de primeira necessidade intelectual da sociedade. Depois, já na pós-modernidade, quando se transformaram em jornais televisivos, tendo como modelo-padrão o USAToday, numa tentativa de concorrer com a televisão valorizando a imagem e as notícias curtas. Cada passo desses afugentou milhões de leitores.
Agora, na era da perplexidade pós-internet, os jornais precisam de uma nova configuração, de uma nova reinvenção, de uma revolução pelo conteúdo. Os jornais não podem mais continuar apresentando suas primeiras páginas e suas notícias com o mesmo padrão de 50, 60 anos atrás. Elas aparecem totalmente superadas e desinteressantes porque já são do conhecimento público desde o dia anterior pela televisão e pela internet. É urgente uma mudança radical que aproveite a maior arma dos jornais diante da internet, a credibilidade, investindo em opinião de qualidade e investigação em profundidade.
Pode ser que Arthur Sulzberger esteja tão convertido e tão convencido da irreversibilidade e da insuperabilidade da tecnologia digital que tenha jogado a toalha na luta do NYTimes diante da internet. Mas, o que parece faltar aos jornais ante o novo e monumental desafio, o maior de sua história, é coragem e ousadia para realizar as mudanças radicais necessárias em formato e conteúdo.
Paradoxalmente, talvez o futuro dos jornais, neste século 21, esteja nos jornais do passado, do século 19; antes da modernidade, os jornais, tanto nos Estados Unidos como no Brasil e outros países, tinham em suas redações escritores, intelectuais, romancistas, cronistas, contistas, ensaístas e jornalistas. Eram jornais de grandes narrativas, de atraentes folhetins, de opiniões qualificadas, de interpretações abalizadas, de abordagens contextulalizadas, de crônicas bem elaboradas, de reflexões e provocações. Davam prazer de leitura.
A valorização cultural e intelectual da notícia
Depois, por imposição da própria modernidade, abandonaram esse compromisso com o fervor intelectual e viraram apenas produto de mercado para consumo imediato da sociedade do espetáculo, sem preocupação com a história e com a cultura, sem densidade. Perderam-se na efemeridade e com a explosão da internet estão sucumbindo. É tão vertiginosa a queda de leitura de jornais que fica cada vez mais acentuada a previsão sobre o fim da mídia impressa.
Diante disso, o futuro dos jornais parece estar no passado antes da modernidade, com a volta de sua capacidade de surpreender, instigar e fazer a sociedade pensar, refletir, criticar, debater e participar sobre os problemas do seu cotidiano. Quando desenvolvem essa capacidade de reflexão, os jornais ativam a mais nobre e sofisticada função da inteligência humana, garante o filósofo Augusto Cury.
Conclusivamente, a única forma possível de os jornais fazerem isso é por meio da valorização cultural e intelectual de produção noticiosa, abolindo a superficialidade do factual e investindo na profundidade textual, pelos mais diversos recursos literários que tornem as notícias impressas mais convidativas, agradáveis e irresistíveis aos leitores. Este é o caminho, aliás, apontado pelo escritor, romancista, novelista e contista americano John Cheever, um dos mais respeitados analistas da mídia nos Estados Unidos: “Uma página de boa prosa sempre será invencível”.
***
Jota Alcides é escritor e jornalista
quarta-feira, 11 de fevereiro de 2015
A Paixão sob teste... HUUUMMMM ! Veja, leia e tire conclusões / New York Times e Zero Hora
Conheça a fórmula da paixão que foi testada por cientistas (e funcionou)
Psicólogo desenvolveu 36 perguntas para aproximar um casal desconhecido
11/02/2015 | 19h33
Se parece meio maluco existirem 36 perguntas que prometem ser a fórmula da paixão, mais louco ainda é ela funcionar depois de ser testada por cientistas. Criadas há quase 20 anos pelo psicólogo Arthur Aron para promover intimidade, as questões foram aplicadas recentemente por Mandy Len Catron, escritora e professora da University of British Columbia, em Vancouver.
Utilizar o celular enquanto está com outra pessoa prejudica o relacionamento
Em 1997, o psicólogo fez um casal de estranhos se conhecerem, em um laboratório, por meio das perguntas. Eles tinham 45 minutos para respondê-las e, depois, deveriam se olhar nos olhos durante quatro minutos, em silêncio total.
Seis meses mais tarde, o casal de laboratório marcou casamento.
Eis que, 20 anos depois, Mandy Len Catron testou o experimento e agora namora o homem que fez o teste com ela. A escritora conta que não seguiu à risca o que o psicólogo fizera há duas décadas: ela e o pretendente não eram desconhecidos. E o local, ao invés de um laboratório, foi uma mesa de bar.
— Vamos tentar — disse ele, revela Mandy em um artigo no New York Times.
Com o iPhone sobre a mesa, eles colavam as perguntas exibidas na tela do aparelho. À medida em que a lista avançava, o grau de intimidade das perguntas também. A escritora contou que gostava de aprender sobre ela mesma por meio das próprias respostas, mas que gostava ainda mais de descobrir coisas sobre seu acompanhante.
Após extrapolarem os 45 minutos testados anteriormente por Arthur Aron, o casal saiu do bar para cumprir a etapa de se olharem nos olhos por quatro minutos, silenciosamente.
"Olhar nos olhos de alguém por quatro minutos, em silêncio, foi uma das experiências mais emocionantes e terríveis da minha vida. Passei o primeiro par de minutos apenas tentando respirar corretamente. Estava rindo de nervosa. Só depois tudo se estabilizou", escreveu Mandy.
Agora que você já sabe que pelo menos dois casais já foram unidos pelas tais 36 perguntas de Arthur Aron, conheça as questões. Ah! E não se esqueça de reservar quatro minutos para olhar no olho.
As perguntas estão divididas em graus de intimidade:
PARTE 1
1. Pense em qualquer pessoa no mundo, quem você convidaria para jantar?
2. Você gostaria de ser famoso? De que maneira?
3. Antes de fazer uma ligação telefônica, você ensaia o que vai dizer? Por quê?
4. O que consiste um dia perfeito para você?
5. Quando foi a última vez que você cantou para si mesmo? E para outra pessoa?
6. Se você fosse capaz de viver até os 90 anos de idade ou de manter o corpo e mente dos 30 anos pelos próximos 60, o que preferiria?
7. Você tem um palpite secreto sobre como vai morrer?
8. Diga três coisas que nós dois parecemos ter em comum.
9. Pelo que você se sente mais grato na vida?
10. Se você pudesse mudar alguma coisa sobre a maneira como você foi criado, o que seria?
11. Em quatro minutos, conte sua história de vida com o máximo de detalhes possível.
12. Se você pudesse acordar amanhã com qualquer qualidade ou habilidade nova, o que seria?
PARTE 2
terça-feira, 8 de julho de 2014
Repercussão da derrota do futebol do Brasil diante da Alemanha / NYT e Clarín
O que deu errado para o Brasil? Tudo, diz NYT
Jornal norte-americano é mais um a ficar embasbacado com a iminente derrota da seleção brasileira na partida de hoje contra a Alemanha
Eddie Keogh/Reuters
Jornal norte-americano é mais um a ficar embasbacado com a iminente derrota da seleção brasileira na partida de hoje contra a Alemanha
Eddie Keogh/Reuters
São Paulo - O que deu errado para o Brasil no primeiro tempo entre Brasil e Alemanha? "Resumindo, tudo", disse o jornal The New York Times em sua cobertura ao vivo.
Leia Mais
O periódico é mais um a se impressionar com a goleada entre Brasil e Alemanha. O jornal Olé chamou o placar de "humilhação".
"A defesa, com Thiago Silva fora por suspensão, está completamente desorganizada", escreveu o NYT. "A falta de Neymar é quase incidental - embora seu substituto, Bernard, não tenha feito nada", diz o texto.
O argentino Clarín acaba de atualizar sua página inicial chamando a partida de "surra histórica".
domingo, 15 de junho de 2014
O que valorizar para a página principal de um jornal...? New York Times discute a transição do papel para a tela digital
A Paper Boat Navigating a Digital Sea
IT’S Wednesday morning and 39 editors have filed in to the 10 a.m. meeting in The Times’s third-floor conference room, some carrying laptops and smartphones, others with pens and notepads.
The meeting, which until recently concentrated on the printed newspaper, now emphasizes a different discussion: journalism on the digital platforms of The Times. There was praise for headlines that had contained the right words — both “Eric” and “Cantor,” in this case — to maximize online search results; a query about whether a story would be accompanied by a video; and talk about how to give a political package more weight on the home page.
There was even a half-joking reference to the readership spike that came after an initial foray on Twitter by the new executive editor, Dean Baquet, who had praised coverage of a Brooklyn funeral and provided a link.
The morning meeting is one of two large news meetings each day, with the other at 4 p.m. (For the record, of the 23 people seated around the main table, as opposed to the periphery, seven were women; two, both men, were African-American.)
The focus at the meetings, and The Times, has come a long way since the days when “what’s going on page one?” was the biggest question. Clearly, there’s an effort to make this, more than ever, an “all platforms” newsroom.
But the structural changes at The Times and in the larger media world are even more striking. And therein lies a problem that has no easy solution: how to fully transform for the digital future when the business model — and the DNA of the newsroom — is so tied to the printed newspaper.
Consider:
• The Times’s journalism reaches far more people digitally than in print. And the digital trend lines are ever upward, while print continues the downward spiral in circulation that began a decade ago and accelerated with the economic downturn of 2008.
• But print, with both advertising and subscription revenues, keeps the paper afloat. In the first quarter of this year, advertising brought in $159 million; of that, only $38 million came from digital ads, with the lion’s share from those in print.
• Digital-only subscriptions, now at about 800,000, are credited with saving the day. But keeping them growing is difficult; relying on their continued dramatic growth is an unsustainable idea.
Meanwhile, the cost of doing it all is astronomical. Yearly newsroom costs alone are more than $240 million; that supports 1,250 journalists and bureaus all over the world.
So urgent questions arise: Is the pace of change at The Times fast enough? And what does the future, both journalistic and business, look like? I can’t answer them definitively but others have taken a shot.
“In theory, The Times can get rid of print,” wrote Frédéric Filloux recently in his Monday Note blog. Steve Outing, a digital media consultant, thinks The Times would be best served by going weekly, keeping the lucrative Sunday edition only. In the Columbia Journalism Review, Ryan Chittum finds the Sunday-only paper a likely scenario. “I’d bet something like that will happen by the end of this decade,” he wrote.
Jonah Peretti, who founded BuzzFeed, said in a recent interview that the biggest question for The Times is not how to improve its digital offerings but “why do they need to have so much revenue?” He answered it this way: “It’s because their cost structure is made for print. When you look at how much revenue comes from print and the scale of their operation because of print, the challenge that they’re facing moving forward is how do they move into a post-print world.”
That’s the most difficult issue of all for The Times. Part of the challenge is that print is in the blood of most of the journalists at the paper. Mr. Baquet has spent his whole career at newspapers, and grapples daily with making the transition.
“I’m trying not to behave like a print editor,” he told me in an interview last week. “What I’m trying to teach myself is to take that energy and dedication to other platforms.” But the purpose of Times journalism, he said, will remain the same: “We put public service ahead of everything else.”
It’s difficult to find anyone at The Times who thinks that print is going away anytime soon. And no one I’ve talked to wants that to happen. There is a great love for the traditional newspaper, including among those who are agitating most for change. Even the young journalists who are the authors of a recent “innovation report” about The Times that has garnered plenty of well-deserved attention are steeped in the world of print and sentimentally attached to it.
Amy O’Leary, for example, a member of the 10-member group that worked on the report — it was headed by A. G. Sulzberger, the 33-year-old son of Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. — told me that she has saved every one of her front-page stories in a white archive box, and that Times editors send reporters the metal plate from the printing plant when their first front-page story is published. She also knows full well that the future lies elsewhere.
“The important thing is that the newsroom is wrestling with these questions,” Ms. O’Leary, a 36-year-old reporter, told me.
She is right. But to move the needle fully to the digital side, The Times will also have to look hard at its newsroom expenses, with an eye toward a leaner future that doesn’t sacrifice journalistic excellence.
In order to thrive, The Times needs radical change at an accelerated pace. At a company so heavily reliant on print for revenue and on digital for the future, that won’t be easy. But it’s crucial, because for readers what’s essential is Times journalism — not its form but its survival.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)