Since They Lost Sammy – New York Times 1/26/2014


Yesterday’s New York Times has a long and moving article about a Brooklyn family whose twelve-year-old son Sammy was killed by a truck on the street in front of their house. Since They Lost Sammy The article touches on their grief, but focuses on how the tragedy galvanized Amy Cohen and Gary Eckstein to become activists for increased pedestrian safety.

The article resonated with me because I know something about families who turn tragedy into a greater good. I spent two years in Len Gengel’s shadow, watching him twist his grief into something remarkable, the Be Like Brit orphanage in Haiti.  I also observed, with pain, how Len recriminated himself for his daughter dying in the Haiti earthquake.  Britney’s death was an arbitrary accident, but affluent Americans, accustomed to controlling our lives, cannot accept arbitrary or accident with any grace.

My heart went out to the Cohen/Eckstein family and I applaud how they are directing their grief for public good.  But I am disappointed by how the New York Times presents a grieving parent’s feelings as fact.

By all evidence Sammy was a great kid, bright and engaging.  Since the family has become public advocates, they have exposed themselves to public scrutiny, as I am doing in this post. Mid-way through the article Ms. Cohen counters, “There was the suggestion that it was just some stupid kid who ran into the street for his ball.” New York Times writer N.B. Kleinfield follows with, They knew that was impossible.

This is where the New York Times slips in its reporting.  Ms. Cohen and Mr. Eckstein certainly believe this was impossible; it may have been improbable, but it is wrong of the Times to report this impossibility as fact. None of us were there. A twelve year old, no matter how mature, is still a twelve year old, and accidents happen.

The disservice the New York Times brings to this family and everyone reading this article is to present a family’s belief, no matter how strongly felt or how much they need it to justify getting up every morning, as a fact.  I have no doubt Ms. Cohen and Mr. Eckstein’s belief in their son is steadfast as a fact. My own mind has conjured and bent ambiguities to help me sleep through the night. But the article’s author should know better.

I hope that Ms. Cohen and Mr. Eckstein find solace in their advocacy work.  I hope it helps reduce the number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in New York and elsewhere.  I also hope that the New York Times will be more careful in their word choice; not every ‘fact’ we carry in our heads is objectively true or verifiable.  Finally, I hope that the family realizes that whatever caused the horrible intersection between Sammy and that truck was a terrible accident, and accidents, by definition, cannot be fully explained.  Why this happened to your son and not mine I do not know. Sometimes we just have to accept.


About paulefallon

Greetings reader. I am a writer, architect, cyclist and father from Cambridge, MA. My primary blog, is an archive of all my published writing. The title refers to a sequence of three yoga positions that increase focus and build strength by shifting the body’s center of gravity. The objective is balance without stability. My writing addresses opposing tension in our world, and my attempt to find balance through understanding that opposition. During 2015-2106 I am cycling through all 48 mainland United States and asking the question "How will we live tomorrow?" That journey is chronicled in a dedicated blog,, that includes personal writing related to my adventure as well as others' responses to my question. Thank you for visiting.
This entry was posted in Personal and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Since They Lost Sammy – New York Times 1/26/2014

  1. Jamie says:

    Hey Paul – catching up on your recent posts. This story is incredibly sad. But the truth is, would not it be equally tragic if the child who was killed was the “stupid” (impulsive) kid who ran out into traffic after the ball? (That would have been my sweet child, who at 27 is still impulsive). Agghh! Yes, the need to be the perfect parent with the perfect child rears its head even here, where I would think grief would bury such thinking. I hope the good work of these poor parents and sister will also save those they seem to dismiss as “JUST SOME STUPID KID.” But it must be so unbearably hard, that it is unfair to be critical, I suppose. And you are right, the Times ran with the idea….

    Hope all is well with you in this wintry season.

  2. paulefallon says:

    The accident is equally tragic regardless whether the child was preoccupied or the truck speeding. The child is blameless, his parents are heroic in turning their grief into something positive, but the Times was faulty in not being more objective in their coverage. I can’t help but wonder if the accident had befallen an immigrant child in a housing project whether the Times would have reported the parent’s feelings as fact, or would have written the article at all. It goes to the Times bias to treat formally educated affluent people with kid gloves.

    • Jamie says:

      Yes – I agree. The word “just” before the words “a stupid kid” stings as much as the word “stupid.” The kid who was killed was not “just a stupid kid,” reports the parents, and the Times concurs. Children who do not belong to the formally educated, affluent are sadly disposable in our unequal society. (A kid in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood best deport to Afghanistan to survive to adulthood….)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s