“The True Story of How a City…” Article Critique

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

“The True Story of How a City in Fear Brutalized the Central Park Five” by Jim Dwyer was published in The New York Times on May 30, 2019. The informative article tells about five men who were imprisoned wrongly in their teens for gang-raping and inflicting grievous bodily harm to a woman. That happened thirty years ago, ten of which on average passed in prison, before the untruth was finally revealed. The author highlights that the recent series by Netflix under the title “When They See Us,” which is based on the men’s biographies, fictionalizes the happenings. This means that the warping of reality continues, which is doubtlessly not appropriate. Therefore, the article is worth reading for a wide audience, including not only active Netflix watchers or crime story lovers, but everyone who is for justice.

Seeking to be objective and avoid all types of bias, Dwyer relies upon facts rather than opinions. To write the given piece, he analyzed critically “parts of the trials in 1990” along with the previous resources regarding what went wrong during the investigation (Dwyer 2019). Thus, according to him, the confessions of the Central Park Five, under which name the boys became known, did not correspond to the real-time and place of the assault. This drives the conclusion that the suspects were forced to admit the crime.

The intended audience of the article is apparently that of the newspaper. In consonance with the statistics by Djordjevic (2021), 90% of The New York Times’ readers identify themselves as Democrats, and 63% are under 50. This allows assuming that the key purpose of the article lies in attracting the attention of the younger and more liberal population to the case. The main idea is the importance of using facts rather than hypotheses and speculations when deciding whom and how to punish.

Generally, the article under the review promotes positive communication by enhancing and maintaining awareness. The author tells about attacking Trisha Meili who was jogging in Central Park that gave its name to the five convicted teenagers. Notwithstanding their participation in less serious wrongdoing in the park, they were not guilty of the given crime but were still arrested in connection with it. In 1989, hardly anyone attached significance to the “weakness of [their] confessions” (Dwyer 2019). Dwyer guesses that racial prejudice played a considerable role in sending the teenagers to prison, since they were all black and brown, while the victim was white. Considering that, the case becomes even more worthy of attention, hence the article grows that much more useful as a source of factual information.

Dwyer apparently argues against racial stereotypes, but not only them; ageism is also worth mentioning. According to him, “the DNA era” in the investigation has revealed that a substantial amount of improper convictions root in false confessions, especially, when it comes to the underage (Dwyer 2019). The description of what actually happened in Central Park makes a contribution to ruining the above types of prejudice, illustrating that non-white minors are not necessarily rapists and beaters. The DNA analysis conducted years after the occasion enabled identifying the actual criminal, the serial rapist, and murderer Matias Reyes, but originally, the society was about to tear the five boys apart.

Being based on the facts, the writing may shock a certain part of its audience. In particular, it contains a brief but informative description of what was done to Ms. Meili and what the consequences were for her health. Descriptions of such a kind normally cause a strong emotional response that increases an individual’s ability to perceive the message the author is willing to transfer. In the given case, the message lies in the absence of a correlation between the grievous crime and the group of underage blacks as well as browns. When arresting, accusing, and sentencing the Five, all participants showed prejudice, which resulted in 6 to 13 years in prison for the innocent. Highlighting that is presumably expected to make the audience think more about their own ability to avoid bias and think critically under any circumstances.

For me personally, the Central Park story is an example of how easy it is to make the whole society hate someone. The lack of evidence was not an obstacle to execrating and brutalizing the teenagers; outraged citizens called them animals that did not deserve to be alive (Dwyer 2019). I find such behavior absolutely natural but still unacceptable since it suppresses the rational, intelligent component of a person’s psyche. Meanwhile, one who is driven solely by emotions is able to cause a tragedy. Therefore, it is essential to analyze any information perceived before reacting to it, which assumption the article by Dwyer illustrates.

Summarizing the above, the writing under the review is useful to read for everyone, not only the target audience of The New York Times. It gives a bright example of the negative consequences that prejudice and stereotypes may have, even if the response to a certain situation seems to be completely adequate. In addition, the case in the article shows the great importance of critical as well as analytical thinking and their prevalence over emotions.