NY Times writer David Carr...cokehead.

[Remote]

The media world is sad over the death of David Carr. A writer for the New York Times.

All over the internet people are talking about what a sad thing it is...what a great loss. Blah blah blah.

They talk about how he struggled with drug addiction but focus on his work for the Times and how he was a truth-teller and all that shyt.

David Carr was a guy who was a rabid drug abuser and developed cancer and died.
Why is this shyt being glossed over like he is some sort of hero overcoming inner demons?

When other people like Rick James abuse drugs and die, they're quick to talk about what a POS he was. But not about him being a supremely talented artist who made some of the best songs of his era?



If you're a gang member and you die of gang violence, nobody gives a shyt and they pretty much say you deserved it.

But if you're a white cokehead writer who smokes and uses drugs and dies of cancer (likely brought on by that same drug use), you didn't deserve it?

 

[thirdeye]

White people can't abuse drugs

 

[Jparker]

This some nightcrawler shyt. They getting stories off dude personal life now.

Cold world

 

[WeDemBoyz]

The media looks after the media.

 

[King Poetic]

I still remember people harping more on Whitney Houston drug problems than her being goat vocalist of all time

 

[WeDemBoyz]

He also did his job very well. Humans are flawed, and it would be unfair to let his addiction define his work and legacy. Just like humans are flawed, so, too, is the media.

 

[thirdeye]

This some nightcrawler shyt. They getting stories off dude personal life now.

Cold world

If it bleeds, it leads

 

[Remote]

He also did his job very well. Humans are flawed, and it would be unfair to let his addiction define his work and legacy. Just like humans are flawed, so, too, is the media.

Addictions define brown and black people's legacies all the time, B.

 

[WeDemBoyz]

Addictions define brown and black people's legacies all the time, B.

Too whom? To you or the media?

 

[Remote]

Too whom? To you or the media?

The media.

But the media manipulates and shapes general public opinion.
All you need to do is look at Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown to see them branded as criminals and drug users. A view widely held by the public.

If it came out that Johnny Cochran had a coke habit, best believe that he'd be trashed in the eyes of all media outlets. Not as a great lawyer who battled and overcame addiction.

 

[Sk3ptical]

 

[WeDemBoyz]

The media.

But the media manipulates and shapes general public opinion.
All you need to do is look at Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown to see them branded as criminals and drug users. A view widely held by the public.

If it came out that Johnny Cochran had a coke habit, best believe that he'd be trashed in the eyes of all media outlets. Not as a great lawyer who battled and overcame addiction.

Right. That's why I say the media is a flawed and biased institution managed by flawed and biased individuals.

The media exercises their power to shape public opinion, but at the end of the day, if I can't define right from wrong, then ultimately I am letting the media dictate my beliefs. In Houston's case, because her personal life was so public, every detail was emphasized to smear her perception. It was fukked up. And it's going to keep happening. Look at Gaza. How many innocent people died before our eyes last year? Yet, it was the Israelis who were "persecuted and under threat."

 

[EndDomination]

He also did his job very well. Humans are flawed, and it would be unfair to let his addiction define his work and legacy. Just like humans are flawed, so, too, is the media.

There are "flaws" and then there are portions of your life that define you.
Its not like he ate a lot of chocolate. He did cocaine incredibly often and had no control over it. His work wasn't that special either.

 

[WeDemBoyz]

There are "flaws" and then there are portions of your life that define you.
Its not like he ate a lot of chocolate. He did cocaine incredibly often and had no control over it. His work wasn't that special either.

What I am saying is that because he had an addiction does not mean he was an ill-natured human-being who should be remembered as an addict. Clearly his addiction did not affect his ability to bond with those around him, nor did it affect his work. And the type of work he did may not have been "special", but he did it well.