Making a Murderer isn’t about murder or rape apology, it’s about the specific way in which a case against an individual unfolded?

I don’t think this article is saying that. Making a Murderer is about a relatively powerless individual who was railroaded by the justice system at least once, and which presents credible evidence it happened again. It is one-sided to be sure, but there is at least a plausible basis for that.

I knew I’d have to head into the greys to find this.

Jesus Christ. It’s basically an extension of that fucking image of him crying as he’s convicted and how that was everywhere. I’m tired of seeing this convicted rapist’s face, like I should somehow give a shit that he’s upset over being punished for the awful things he’s done. Let him rot in jail and be forgotten.

If you want to write a long story that paints a complex portrait of a villain, it is adivisable to first find a villian with some degree of complexity. Former college football player turned cop who likes to rape women ain’t exactly Richard III.

Right? I kept reading and reading, then eventually skimming whole chunks at a time, waiting for some kind of kicker - the “and then he was found innocent on appeal” moment, or the “and then I went to Oklahoma City to hear from his victims”, something to give the whole mess a point - but holy shit, it just kept going…

is that the intent was to paint a complex portrait of a villain, which can be done if done well

So the guy who green lit and edited this piece, Glenn Stout, is the same guy who picks Best American Sportswriting every year? Great.

Technically, Zero is not a number. It is a place holder to show the lack of a number.

Brevity is the soul of wit, so for Holtzclaw all we really need is,

Smart critique of shitty journalism on Deadspin. This would be fine and good, but over on Gawker we have a guy insinuating a connection between Jeb Bush with Nazism because he owns a FN Herstal handgun (the Nazis forced FN Herstal to make guns for them after they invaded the company’s homeland Belgium).

So how much longer do we have to wait for this level of analysis about Gawker’s own fuck up with that guy Jordan outted??

“Troubled past” is, I suppose, a very slightly less offensive version of “who cares, they’re just n-words”.

The downside to digital media is that, at the end of the day, you can’t wipe your ass with it.

Of course, now he has a reason to immediately get started on his next “why the lynch mob mentality of the modern internet (defined as a bunch of people calling a convicted serial rapist a rapist) means we can’t have nuanced discourse” piece.

When I saw the piece pop up on SBNation, I thought about clicking it for half a second before remembering that I already know more than enough about this monster and don’t need any more info regardless of what it was.

Barry Petchesky: “The writer driven idea that length is tantamount to quality”

I was reading it, thinking “so ok when are they going to say anything at all other than just that everyone who knew Holtzclaw seven years ago thinks he couldn’t have done this.” The last sentence was like the writer thought to himself, “wait oops I can’t sound too much like I’m supporting this guy, throw in a sentence…

It notes that Holtzclaw had a “number of black friends.”

Availability Cascade is exactly the right one. I love this stuff too—really wish I had more of a grounding in it. (You could make a good argument that a unit on cognitive biases should be taught in j-school.)