The New York Times's description of Michael Brown as "no angel" has prompted a swift,

critical reaction from other media outlets, including Vox, and various people on social
media
!lison Mitchell, national editor for the Times, defended the term in conversations with
the "ashington #ost's $rik "emple%
"&t comes out of the opening scene," sa's Mitchell, who notes that "like man' teenagers,"
Brown was indeed "no angel" (ka', )ut would the New York Times have chosen this
term * which is commonl' used to descri)e miscreants and thugs * if the victim had
)een white+ Mitchell% "& think, actuall', we have a nuanced stor' a)out the 'oung man
and if it had )een a white 'oung man in the same exact situation, if that,s where our
reporting took us, we would have written it in the same wa'" "hen asked whether she
thought that "no angel" was a loaded term in this context, Mitchell said she didn't )elieve
it was "The stor' talks a)out )oth pro)lems and promise," she notes
The Times's response has done little to calm the storm -ean Mc$lwee , research
assistant at .emos , dug into the archives to compare the Times's description of Brown
to the newspaper's previous descriptions of serial killers and terrorists (f course,
comparing articles produced decades apart )' different writers and editors isn't an exact
science But it does lend context to the widespread frustration over how 'oung )lack men
are portra'ed in the media -ee a compilation of Mc$lwee's tweets )elow%