2021年6月4日 星期五

The Daily: What Does Justice Look Like?

Our producer reflects. Plus, behind the making of Day X.

Hi everyone, welcome to Friday and welcome to summer. Tell us: What do you want to listen to on your summer road trip, or while you're on a hike or lying on the beach? We're open to show requests (no promises, but we always love to hear what you're curious about).

This week in the newsletter, our producer Neena Pathak shares how our team thought about Tuesday's episode. Then, we go behind the scenes on the making of Day X with Katrin Bennhold, The Times's Berlin bureau chief.

Crowds of people watching fires during the June 1, 1921, Tulsa Race Massacre in Tulsa, Okla. A violent white mob entered the prosperous Black community, burning homes and businesses and killing hundreds.Department of Special Collections, McFarlin Library, The University of Tulsa, via Associated Press

By Neena Pathak

For years, few Americans knew what had happened in Tulsa, Okla., in 1921: one of the worst racial terror attacks in our nation's history. A white mob killed hundreds of residents, burned more than 1,250 homes and erased years of Black success in Greenwood, a prosperous Black neighborhood in Tulsa. After the attack, both victims and perpetrators were silenced by fear — the former of retaliation if they spoke out and the latter of advertising their crimes. But silence can be hard to work with in our medium. So we knew we had to resurrect this history in the voices of those who lived it and those who had studied it, documenting what exactly happened, how the history seemed to disappear, and why that history matters.

We decided to open and close the episode with the voice of Viola Ford Fletcher, one of the three known survivors of the massacre, who testified in Congress last month. Ms. Fletcher, 107, was 7 years old when a white mob burned Greenwood. When my colleagues Liz O. Baylen, Soraya Shockley and I listened to her testimony, we were moved not only by her memories of that day, but also by her poignant depiction of the lasting impact this massacre has had on her life. She captured what Chief Egunwale Amusan, President of the African Ancestral Society in Tulsa, later said in the hearing: "This is not a matter of past trauma, but it is concurrent." While we weren't able to incorporate the testimonies of all three survivors into one short episode, listening helped us understand what recurring themes to highlight, including the import of this event, and what justice might look like a century later.

ADVERTISEMENT

To do this, we turned to Brent Staples, one of our editorial board members. Brent's breadth of knowledge on this subject posed a challenge to our production team: How do we distill so much information into one podcast episode? He knew so much about the Tulsa massacre — the makeup of Greenwood, the testimonies of Black Tulsans who survived the violence and destruction perpetrated by deputized white mobs, and the labor involved in resurfacing this history years after the attacks. Every question we had yielded more stories — and additional questions. It was hard to know where to begin.

Brent joined us for five expansive recording sessions (each up to three hours long), and through our conversations, we were able to create a show structure to both explain this history and its significance for America's ongoing reckoning with systemic racism.

We ended the show on a question: What does justice look like? It's a question that's present in our national discourse as Americans wrestle with centuries of slavery, Jim Crow and, in the case of Greenwood, the eradication of a thriving Black community. And after Ms. Fletcher's testimony, lawmakers must contend with another, related, question: Does justice require reparations?

Follow Neena on Twitter: @neenpathak.

ADVERTISEMENT

Behind the making of Day X

A photo of Franco A. at a ceremony at the Saint-Cyr military academy in France. Laetitia Vancon for The New York Times

In the spring of 2019, the Daily producers Lynsea Garrison and Clare Toeniskoetter worked with Katrin Bennhold, the Berlin bureau chief, to create a series on European populism. They knew they wanted to work together again, and at the time Katrin was just starting to think about embarking on a big project: reporting on the infiltration of the military and the police by far-right extremists planning for the end of liberal democracy in Germany. "We wanted to get in on the ground floor and make this a true audio project," Clare said. Our colleague Terence McGinley spoke with Katrin and Clare about the making of the series, and below is an excerpt from his conversation with Katrin.

Katrin, you have been covering the far right in Germany for several years. How did you arrive at this series?

ADVERTISEMENT

This has been an important reporting theme in my time in Germany. The rise of a far-right party, the Alternative for Germany, which was able to make it into the German Parliament and is the biggest opposition party there, is a big deal. And then this case of Franco A. came back toward the end of 2018, when German news media reported that there was this whole network of soldiers and police officers and like-minded civilians who were planning for the day democracy dies: Day X. Some reports even called this network a shadow army. "Shadow army" is a term that has a lot of historical baggage for anyone in Germany. They were these paramilitary groups in the 1920s that assassinated politicians and plotted coups. That's really what got me started.

Franco A. is the special focus of one episode. He is somebody with racist, absolutist ideas. Why was it important to tell his story?

To me, one of the most frightening and most important features of the new right, as they call themselves — the old right being neo-Nazis and even Nazis — is that the new right believes in the same ideology, but they look different and they talk differently. They often don't use crude racist slurs.

We have this image of neo-Nazi skinheads in bomber jackets and tattoos. But a lot of these guys blend in much more — and what the German authorities are now realizing is that some of them are wearing police or military uniforms.

I feel we do need to show them for what they are. The more we learn about how they act and disguise their ideology to make it more socially acceptable, the more we can unpack real grievances from fakes ones, the better equipped we are to understand our world today. I know it's a really fine line, and I think The New York Times and all of us need to be careful not to give people like that a platform; it's a thing that constantly has to be on our minds as we do these stories.

On The Daily this week

Tuesday: A recounting of what happened during the Tulsa Race Massacre and an exploration of what justice could look like 100 years on.

Wednesday: A look inside the mind of Senator Joe Manchin, the make-or-break legislator of the Biden era.

Thursday: How and why did the Texas state legislature just have the most ultraconservative legislative session in modern memory?

Celebrate graduation with the Odessa team

And this coming week, we have a special live event with Michael Barbaro and the team behind Odessa, following up with our sources to hear how they have been since the show aired — and to celebrate their graduation. We'll also hear from the Odessa High School marching band and La'Darius Marshall from the Netflix series "Cheer." We hope you'll join us.

That's it for The Daily newsletter. See you next week.

Have thoughts about the show? Tell us what you think at thedaily@nytimes.com.

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Love podcasts? Join The New York Times Podcast Club on Facebook.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for The Daily from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Wonking Out: Do hiring headaches imply a labor shortage?

Making sense of employers' complaints.
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Don't pay too much attention to today's jobs report; it came in slightly below expectations, but given the noisiness of the data (and the extent to which the numbers are often revised), it told us very little that we didn't already know.

The truth is that two things are clear about the U.S. economy right now. It's growing very fast, and adding jobs at a rapid clip; but the pace of job creation is being crimped, at least a bit, because employers are having a hard time finding as many workers as they want to hire.

Sometimes complaints about a lack of willing workers just mean that companies don't want to pay decent wages, and there's no doubt some of that is going on. But this time that's not the whole story. The latest Beige Book — the Fed's informal survey of business conditions — suggests both that a number of companies really are having trouble adding workers as fast as they'd like, and that this is happening even though some are raising wages, offering signing bonuses, etc.

But what, if any, policy conclusion should we draw from this evidence? Republicans say that it means that we must cut benefits for the unemployed (and so many Republican-controlled states are now cutting aid, even though the federal government was actually bearing the cost). But they always say that, whatever is happening to the economy.

Many others point to lack of child care, with schools still closed in some states and normal day care crippled by the lingering effects of the pandemic. And fear of infection is still out there, despite a vaccination campaign that has proceeded faster than almost anyone expected.

There may be truth to all of these stories — yes, even some role for unemployment benefits, although the impact is probably modest. But are we just overthinking this? How much of the issue is simply that it takes some time to get the economy back up to speed from a standing start?

ADVERTISEMENT

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

I've been struck by reporting from Britain, which has been even more successful than the United States in achieving widespread vaccination (thank you, National Health Service). The thing is, Britain and America took very different approaches to supporting workers through lockdown. Where we relied mainly on enhanced unemployment benefits, Britain relied mainly on a "job retention" scheme — subsidizing earnings of workers placed on temporary leave by employers in locked-down sectors.

This scheme meant that Britain experienced much less of a rise in measured unemployment than we did, even though it suffered a deep economic slump:

The British did it differently.FRED

You might think this would also make it easier for Britain to quickly restore its economy as the pandemic fades. Instead, the British press is full of reports about employers having a hard time finding workers.

So maybe the problem is simply that it's hard to get the economy restarted in a few months.

One indicator many of us have been looking at during this weird economic period, in which facts on the ground change too quickly for standard statistics to keep up, is the number of diners reported by the reservation service OpenTable.com. OpenTable conveniently provides data on the number of seated diners during the pandemic relative to those on the corresponding date in 2019. Here's what it looks like:

ADVERTISEMENT

A dine-amic recovery.OpenTable

Some automakers used to promise that their cars could go from zero to 60 in 16 seconds; well, the U.S. restaurant sector is trying to go from minus 60 — 60 percent below its prepandemic level — to zero in roughly 16 weeks. Why imagine that this could happen smoothly?

It's true that some fairly old history might have made economists complacent.

Most forecasters expect U.S. economic growth this year to be the fastest since 1984, when the economy was going through the "morning in America" boom after the double-dip recession of 1979-82. Superficially, neither that recession nor the boom that followed looked anything like recent events. At a deeper level, however, there are some similarities.

ADVERTISEMENT

In particular, the early '80s slump, like the 2020 slump, was brought on by a sort of exogenous shock — in the earlier case, a huge rise in interest rates as the Fed tightened money to curb inflation. The impact of this shock, like that of Covid-19, fell especially hard on one sector — housing, rather than travel and leisure — which then sprang back rapidly as the headwinds abated:

Morning in construction.FRED

But I've been reading through Beige Books from that era, and there isn't much about problems hiring workers. Why was rapid economic acceleration apparently easier back then?

One answer is that as fast as it was, the 1983-84 recovery wasn't a match for what's happening now. Housing was never as deeply depressed as travel and leisure are today.

Also, the economy was different then, with far more workers on temporary layoffs who could easily be recalled to their jobs (although that may be true in Britain now, and there are still hiring problems.)

So if the question is whether I'm entirely sure why we're hearing reports of trouble hiring, the answer is no. But I still suspect that it's mainly a transitory issue of getting a stalled economy up to speed in record time. And in a few months all of these short-term problems will probably have been forgotten.

Corrections: An earlier version of a graph accompanying last Friday's newsletter misstated the value of currency in circulation, by denomination. It was in billions of dollars, not millions. Tuesday's newsletter misspelled the given name of a Keynesian economist. He was Lorie Tarshis, not Laurie.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018