What exactly do you think happened in the US with Iryna Zarutska? I didn't get the sense that it was "intentionally downplayed because it might inflame racial tensions and divisions."
On the contrary, what I saw was that it was intentionally played up in order to inflame racial tensions and divisions.
You're correct that whether this was "played up" or "downplayed" is just spin depending on your politics. But Iryna Zarutska’s murder was objectively newsworthy for reasons that go beyond the sheer volume of U.S. homicides
1) The Random Factor is Terrifying; Most murders are not random—they involve people who know each other. A cold, unprovoked stabbing of a stranger on public transit is exceedingly rare (statistically, less than 20% of homicides involve strangers) and generates disproportionate public fear and media attention. This was a random act of brutality.
2) She was a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who fled a war zone, seeking safety, only to be killed here. That tragic irony is international news.
3) The alleged killer's reported comment, "I got that white girl," immediately framed the attack as racially motivated, which is an automatic amplifier in today's media climate.
The fury isn't just about the crime itself; it's about the speed and selectivity of media coverage.
Ask yourself; If the roles were reversed—a Black refugee was stabbed by a White assailant who made a racial remark—would the major national outlets have been silent for days? Absolutely not. It would have dominated the news cycle instantly, just like the coverage of George Floyd or the police incident that sparked the 2011 London riots.
When the victim is White and the narrative can be used to critique progressive policies (soft-on-crime, public safety), the media was perceived to be slow-walking the story. That delay was the true catalyst. It looked like an obvious attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad.
That perceived reluctance shot those outlets in the foot. It allowed the case to go viral internationally, validating the suspicion that the mainstream press will only give urgent coverage to stories that fit a specific, pre-approved political script. If a news source is visibly covering for a political "side," it deserves to lose credibility.
1) 20% of homicides involving strangers is still 4,566 deaths per year, or nearly 13 per day.
2) I don't think she is the only refugee to be killed abroad. It is certainly tragic irony, but I don't see why that makes it international news. If anything, this just feels like an extension of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
3) This is by far the most compelling argument you've presented.
I think my problem with framing this as racism (let alone systemic racism - which is what the left complains about) is that the Decarlos Brown Jr. was diagnosed with schizophrenia. More than anything, I think this is a failing of our society to provide mental health for those who need it. And unfortunately, this is not newsworthy.
You’ve implicitly asserted that deaths by gun/knife are all homicides.
Accidents, intentional suicides and defensive manslaughter are not homicides by the same metric.
You’d have to divide your number into component segments before calculating the 20%. And even so, this is still newsworthy for the reasons I mentioned.
Your other points largely don’t help your case either, the point was a combination of the brutality, randomness, her already “tragic” backstory (fleeing war for safety in the US) and as a minor aside potentially the fact that it was racially aggravated.
It’s alarming to me that you think it’s not newsworthy, these are hopefully not common situations like you imply, if it is then I understand people’s unwillingness to use public transport in the US.
I think we might disagree on what uncommon characteristics make something worthy of national or international news.
Again, this type of violence - both death by knives and attacks by the mentally ill - is unfortunately somewhat common in the US, and I've shared statistics showing this. (The US is huge - I'm not sure you're appreciating that it's a country with 40x the population of Sweden!) This did make the local city and state news, which seems appropriate! In fact, national news stories were run too - the issue from the right is: not enough stories.
Of course, as soon as I say it's somewhat common, I must also point out that even if occurrences happen multiple times daily, the incidence rate towards any individual is extremely low. People aren't being murdered left and right but a number are killed each day. It is a BIG country.
And maybe this fact should be newsworthy! A lot of the left thinks it should - and that we should be more careful about giving weapons out, including to those diagnosed with mental illness, and offer mental health services and medicarions. The right's quick to point out that knives can kill too. But then they defund social services for mental health (see the Big Beautiful Bill as a recent example.) This is a place the left and right could join forces, but instead the right chooses to complain about the media and stole divisiveness instead of solving the problem (keep in mind - Republicans have FULL control of our federal government right now.)
Regardless, I don't see why the victim's nationality (or upbringing, or gender, or attractiveness) make this newsworthy. Or why she has received more news coverage than the most recent school shooting.
That's a thoughtful push from you, and I certainly agree that the sheer scale of the US means a huge number of local tragedies get buried in the national statistics. I also agree that newsworthiness isn't just about raw numbers.
Where we differ, though, is on why certain stories get the national spotlight.
You're right that attacks involving knives or people with mental illness are common enough to be local news. So, what stories go national?
A story goes national not because it's a statistical outlier, but because it's a perfect political vehicle.
The Daniel Penny case wasn't statistically rare, but it became a national crisis because it was a flawless vehicle for the national debate about race, vigilante justice, and public safety. It fit the dominant media's narrative template perfectly.
The Iryna Zarutska case, however, was politically toxic for that same dominant national media, so it was initially downplayed. She was a refugee fleeing war for safety who was randomly killed on U.S. public transit. That narrative has a strong international hook that should have made it national news instantly, but the political optics (Black assailant, white refugee victim, raising questions about unchecked urban violence) meant national outlets made a visible choice to leave it local.
The problem isn't that she didn't get enough coverage, but that this hesitation felt like the media running political interference. When people see the media instantly mobilise for the Penny story but drag their feet on the Zarutska story, that perceived selective outrage is the root cause of the media mistrust we were talking about from the beginning.
It makes people feel the press is choosing sides, not choosing news.
I'm not sure why she got more air-time than the latest school shooting; that would be in line with talking points regarding gun control and has a visceral response in people because it's children being targeted.
I don't understand why they're considered different; if one is newsworthy to a side and the other is somehow not then I'd like to understand- clearly I have missed something?
I believe that you are being told by your media bubble that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different.
Help me understand why, what are they telling you?
> Clearly you are being told that Iryna Zarutska and Jordan Neely are different.
This is no longer coming from a place of curiosity, but a presumption of superiority. If you assume I am simply brainwashed and have nothing worthwhile to say, there's no point continuing this discussion.
Feel free to message me off HN if you change your mind.
There's just me and you here, nobody is reading this thread anymore.
I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan.
I'm not attacking you, and I am curious.
To me Iryna Zarutska is newsworthy, in all the ways I explained. Jordan Neely was publicised widely despite it being much less harrowing and random; so I'm genuinely curious as to why.
This isn't a "gotcha". Help me understand how you reconcile this - or if you don't, then fair play and I hope you at least understand that you are not immune to propaganda either.
> I think you don't have an answer for what I'm saying because your mind has gone into "I am attacked, must defend myself" mode - and this is because you've been told to believe that only villains are talking about Iryna, and only Hero's are talking about Jordan.
No, my problem is your presumption - even here - that I am brainwashed when we were having a logical, rational conversation. I'm incredibly disappointed in you and I really hope you change your tune. This isn't what I expect from you, honestly.
I do think that you're watching a lot of left leaning media and that you're being nudged to think a certain way.
Let's not go so far as to claim "brainwash". You can prove me wrong immediately by supplying me with an answer.
I'm not disappointed in you, but I will be if you can't step back and assess yourself critically. I do it all the time. That's why I don't care about "not towing the line" for the left; while being a dyed in the wool lefty. (at least by UK standards).
The problem isn't the question - which I have answered you on elsewhere - it's that you're not engaging from a place of curiosity and understanding. This isn't how I know you to be and it's really quite sad. (I also don't watch any news media - on YouTube or TV.)
You ignored the bulk of what I wrote, and responded with a one-sentence question, and then went on to tell me that I only have these beliefs because my propagandists want it to be so. This isn't knowable and it's a gross accusation I haven't made about you, despite how easy it is to make.
But it seems, you haven't accused me of being wrong, I didn't engage with the bulk of your comment because it's completely irrelevant and factually inaccurate in many places, so there's no point in going down the path of arguing details when there's a clear and obvious double standard that we could talk about instead - one that gets to the meat of the issue- if it's not newsworthy as you claimed.
So yeah, I think we're done here. Clearly you're not able to reconcile these situations, and to be clear: you haven't answered me like you claimed.
All that has been proven here today is that you cannot think impartially across political lines at things on a human level.
I am disappointed, yes - this is a feeling, attributed to me. What you did is disgusting - not you, please don't warp words. Where is the name calling?
Yes, we're done here. You are criticizing me for not answering a question - which I answered, off HN - when you ignored the bulk of what I wrote. Your casual dismissal here doesn't resolve that.
I think you're still missing the main point, and the Daniel Penny case perfectly illustrates it.
You're arguing that statistically, a number of deaths from random attacks or involving mental illness occur every day, which is true for a country the size of the US. But newsworthiness is not based on raw numbers; it's based on narrative friction.
The Daniel Penny case became a national flashpoint not because a man died, but because it created a political crisis for the media and political establishment. The victim was Black, the assailant was a white former Marine, and the incident raised questions about public safety and vigilantism in a major Democratic city. This was a story that fit the national, race-and-politics-driven script, so it received instant, wall-to-wall coverage, and a $2.9 million legal defense fund was raised internationally.
The Iryna Zarutska case created a different kind of political crisis; one that did not fit the pre-approved progressive script and was potentially "toxic" for the establishment's narrative (an innocent white refugee killed by a Black man who reportedly made a racist remark). This is why the coverage was perceived to be slow-walked.
Both cases became newsworthy because of their political utility or lack thereof. My initial argument stands: the fury over the Zarutska case was about the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad. The media's visible selectivity is precisely why people are driven to "untrustworthy" sources in the first place.
> My initial argument stands: the fury over the Zarutska case was about the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad. The media's visible selectivity is precisely why people are driven to "untrustworthy" sources in the first place.
Your initial argument was actually:
> Another alternative could be similar to what happened in the US with Iryna Zarutska: whereby because it might inflame racial tensions and divisions it is intentionally downplayed.
> Iryna Zarutska’s murder was objectively newsworthy for reasons that go beyond the sheer volume of U.S. homicides
I agree with your new argument - that was indeed what the fury was over ("the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative".) The disagreement was over whether there was an actual (coordinated?) attempt to downplay a narrative.
That's a very precise reading of my argument, and you're right to point out the subtle shift in focus. I agree completely that the fury was over the perceived attempt to downplay the narrative, which means we now agree on the symptom of the problem.
The disagreement now is over the existence of an actual coordinated attempt to downplay the story. Here's why I think that question doesn't even need a leaked memo to be proven, (which is key to understanding why people stop trusting the media).
Traditional journalism operates using shared professional standards called news values[0]; things like Conflict, Prominence, Unusualness, and Human Interest. The Zarutska story was loaded with these: an innocent Ukrainian refugee killed by random, violent crime on public transit. It's an international story of "broken sanctuary" and obvious tragedy. If this had happened in the UK you wouldn't question why it would be international news I would guess?
The media's initial, noticeable hesitation on this high-value story, while simultaneously giving instant (and this is the key), massive coverage to the Daniel Penny incident (which also happened on public transit and also involved mental health issues), is precisely what creates the perception of visible selectivity.
It doesn't take a secret meeting for editors to collectively know which stories fit their organisational or political narrative best and which ones are "toxic." They simply apply the news values inconsistently. The public observes this difference in speed, framing, and resource allocation. They conclude that the news isn't being chosen based on objective newsworthiness, but on political utility. That is the mechanism that drives people away from traditional sources and toward the very "untrustworthy" alternatives that promise to cover the stories the mainstream leaves behind.
On the contrary, what I saw was that it was intentionally played up in order to inflame racial tensions and divisions.
There are over 7,150 deaths caused by handguns in the US each year. There are an additional 5,295 deaths caused by other firearms. There are 1,560 deaths caused by knives. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in...
Why was this instance newsworthy?