Enjoy the New York Times and their exploitation of people’s fear of unfortunate events on what turned out to be a slow news day. Explaining the victims’ entire life stories is more of a 9/11 thing to do, isn’t it?
I took that train a bunch of times this year and I’m sure to be taking it again soon. It’s safer, per passenger mile traveled, than any other form of transport I could use to get upstate. (All the more that I want this incident thoroughly investigated and reported, preferably with the reporting to FOLLOW the investigation efforts and not precede them) I want the public’s perspective on this incident to be clear, reasonable, and grounded. This is none of that.
BTW I don’t seem to recall these incidents taking over a proportionally larger amount of screen real estate on the Times’ website when they happened. I know that they didn’t disrupt regional transit when they happened. (Ha, like we’d ever have just ONE lane of road coming from densely-populated outer regions of the metropolitan area) I also know the NTSB doesn’t lift a finger when a rogue driver of a private vehicle causes as much injury and death. But that doesn’t mean those incidents shouldn’t matter as much as (we are told that) this one matters. Don’t you agree?
Yeah. NYT did the thing I assumed they were doing. How about profiles of every pedestrian run over in this city, is that within their exhaled journalistic powers? Unlike exploitation of rare crashes, it would actually make a difference to draw attention to common ways of being killed.
But that’s… not… news.