I did not stop reading. The antisemetic postcards from October are different than the ones the supervisors received with Garry's face and the "this is not a threat" line.
Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught.
I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.
It's related in the sense that it's part of a recent pattern of harassment against a similar set of local public officials. It's newsworthy as part of a trend.
Analogous is any other news story that points out any other recent trend.
For example, there is a similar NYT article today about increases in train derailments and accidents since last year. The story mentions East Palestine, OH Norfolk Southern derailment. While they're not blaming Norfolk Southern for the broader increase in accidents, it's something that readers have ALSO heard about that was very prominently in the news and helps ground the trend in a noteworthy example.
I think you are too eager to decide that the article is scummy.
For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that
i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before
ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face
The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it.
And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.
I would argue that Garry's motivation and intent is extremely relevant to this topic of conversation; possibly the most relevant thing. The article omitting this is absolutely scummy, because it fills that omission with connections to antisemetism, and then goes on to speak on how "powerful people need to be held accountable" (absolutely true).
Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.
Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught.
I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.