One of those gentle violent guys
The New York Times apparently perpetrated one of the most oxymoronic lines one could dream up in its initial reporting on the guy who killed three people and injured nine more at Planned Parenthood. Gawker has the record.
After what was likely a heated debate around the editorial desk, The New York Times decided to rework a story that described Robert Lewis Dear, the man who killed three people and wounded nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic on Friday, as “gentle.”
A story published on Saturday about Dear’s background used that adjective, defined as “[a person of] a mild in temperament or behavior; kind or tender” to describe Dear, following that adjective with details about how he harassed women for years.
Jack Mirkinson tweeted a snapshot:
Acquaintances described the guy as a gentle loner who occasionally unleashed violent acts toward neighbors and women he knew. Some “gentle.” (Also, weren’t some of the neighbors women? Was he surrounded exclusively by men?)
To be fair, you can see how they screwed that up. The acquaintances they talked to probably said he seemed like a gentle loner and yet he had violent outbursts. Violent people can seem gentle at intervals; few people are all one thing all the time. But still. You can see how they screwed it up, but it’s more difficult to see how they failed to catch it before publication.
Of course he had to be described as a loner. But maybe he didn’t want to be alone, it was just that no one could stand being around him. Most of the loners I know are ordinary people who just value quiet. They are not people who go on violent rampages.
People who are not naturally loners but find themselves isolated might have a tendency to get somewhat stressed about it. People who are genuinely loners actually find it relaxing. I know, because I’m a loner. And no one would describe me as gentle, but I would never go on a violent shooting rampage. (Well, I am gentle in dealing with babies, kittens, puppies, and elderly people. Students, however, describe me as “Brutal” – or at least my tests, but then, I am more than the sum of my tests.)
Is there a Big Book of Journalistic Clichés on the shelves of every newspaper office?
…
I take it he was white, and (nominally, at least) Christian?
So, excluded from the category ‘terrorist’.
Attacked women for reasons connected to reproduction, and/or a place dedicated to the welfare of women’s reproductive capacities? Not an ‘extremist’, then.
How, then, do we frame this? There has to be some way to describe the guy pre-incident to contrast with his behaviour –
I know, did he have a lot of friends? No? ‘Gentle loner’ it is, then!
…
Neighbours and women? Neighbours are people, silly! Since when has the category of ‘people’ included ‘women’?
So “gentle” is now an “except for those times when he’s actively violent” term… Good to know.
As cringe-worthy as the term is, the Times as attributing it to Dear’s ‘acquaintances.’ There seems to be a range of standard, ‘the witnesses were clueless’ memes. Every rage-killer, terrorist, and serial murderer seems to stir a string of these clichés up from the muck.