[rmxt]

I'm guessing this is a criticism? Well, it's a faulty one: much like scientists deepened the field of biology by looking both under a microscope and at the macro-scale (population studies, etc.), we can improve society for all people involved by both looking at micro-interactions (individual traffic stops) and macro-interactions (social forces and policies).

[Nadya]

In another comment someone listed three micro-interactions [0] as evidence of a media narrative. So I'll provide three micro-interactions.

Dillon Taylor, Gilbert Collar, Christopher Roupe.

My criticism is about placing small, isolated incidents under a microscope. A seemingly large amount of evidence gets national media coverage - so it appears to be a bigger problem than it is. Ebola fear-mongering is a good example of that. There are local pandemics of much more immediate danger that receive far less coverage for far less time than ebola did.

It's confirmation bias at best and media propaganda at worst. The media is a business, people seem to forget that. They have no issues towing lines if it brings in more revenue. That also means they'll tug political ideologies that align closely with their viewers.

I also have no issue admitting that a problem likely does exist. But it's much smaller than the media would have you believe: they just put it under a microscope. So to you, it seems much larger. That's the problem with microscopes.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9971212