The Media is Failing Jordan Neely
Reports on his past struggles with mental illness has disturbingly supplanted coverage of what actually happened on the F train
By now, most of you have already heard the story of Jordan Neely, the 30 year old homeless man who was strangled on a New York subway last week. This was a horrific attack that never should have happened. Is is tragic how police, schools, and social services failed Neely throughout his life.
And just as tragic is how mainstream outlets are failing Jordan Neely after death. By vastly over-covering Neely’s mental and physical struggles, their reporting fails to adequately inform readers — while at the same time giving ammunition to those hellbent on painting the killer as a martyr.
Let’s take the New York Times’ reporting as an example. Over the past two weeks, the Times has published by my count 22 pieces on Neely’s death. More than half touch on Neely’s battles with mental health crises and drug addiction. Over those stories, the Times has relentlessly detailed his mother’s brutal strangulation, his placement on a watchlist for homeless people in crisis, and how he used to perform as a Michael Jackson impersonator. In contrast, the Times has published almost nothing on the killer’s background. All we really know about him is that he is an ex-marine and college dropout.
To some extent, this is a factor of how the homeless lack any semblance of privacy, even after death. I’m sure the Times would report more on the killer’s background if that information was easier to find. But it’s still surprising that media organizations would focus on the mental health of the victim — instead of the man who killed someone on the F train. Yes, Perry had a long history of mental health issues. And those issues played a role in how he frightened fellow passengers before he was attacked. But rarely are the details of a victims’ life so scrupulously poured over when we know so much less about the killer.
This is most troubling because these details have no bearing on the attack itself. The killer knew nothing about Neely’s history of mental illness. He only knew that Neely was acting unwell and scaring other passengers. In my opinion, scaring people on the subway does not give passersby a license to kill. If that were the case, Eric Andre would be dead many times over. This coverage is useless to a reader interested in learning more about the attack or if Neely’s actions warranted being placed in a chokehold.
It appeals more to the reader asking, “Was Neely the type of person I should care about?” And unfortunately, the Times’ coverage gives fodder to pundits who claim that because of his background, you shouldn’t care.
Obviously Neely’s life matters. Not because he was a good person or a great Michael Jackson impersonator, but because he is a human being. And one cannot help but care after hearing the horrific details of his death. But unfortunately, coverage of Neely’s past struggles have supplanted important discussion of what actually happened on the F train.
Content note: The following paragraph includes descriptions of the killing.
The Times rarely mentions how Neely was placed in a “blood choke” for two and a half minutes, even though this choke can cut off oxygen to the brain in less than eight seconds. The Times also rarely mentions the killer continued to choke Neely after other passengers repeatedly warned him that he could “catch a murder charge.” The Times regularly fails to describe in any detail how Neely went completely limp with empty eyes well before the assault was over. And I could find no mention of how Neely defecated on himself, a clear sign that he was dying. Even after another passenger told the killer that this indicated Neely was in grave danger, the killer kept him in a chokehold.
To be fair, The Times does give some of these details in this article — but only after 900 words about Neely’s struggles with mental illness and addiction.
There are many important questions we could be tackling with more depth. The Times could expand its admirable reporting on the use of deadly chokeholds, how homelessness is demonized, and how the fear of violence is ironically making this country more violent. Clear, specific coverage of the attack itself is more conducive to this analysis than vague apologia. But at times, the Times seems more interested in a sickening, inappropriate question: Did Jordan Neely really deserve to live?
For other great criticism of the broader media’s handling of this story, see these pieces by John Ganz and David Farrier.
