Posted on 10/23/2014 5:35:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In August, after a Ferguson, Missouri police officer shot and killed a young, unarmed black man named Michael Brown, the reaction by local residents, civil rights activists, and the media instantly went nuclear. The DNA of our political and legal systems rest on principles of equality and color-blindness, and here was yet another example of a major genetic mutation that we've been unable to fix: young black men being murdered by the police because they're young and black. Still. Even in 2014, this happened, at a time when adults are supposed to be racially enlightened.
Ferguson checked several boxes. The town was mostly black and its police department was mostly white. The basic story was black and white, too. Eyewitnesses saw officer Darren Wilson shoot his weapon, over and over, at Brown. They saw him shoot Brown in the back. They saw him shoot Brown after Brown had stumbled from the shock of the first thwack, thwack, thwack, bullets having shattered his arm.
Predictably, the police department closed ranks around its officer. They pointed out that Brown had stolen some beer from a local convenience store moments earlier. They hinted he had marijuana in his system. They tried to stomp out the credibility of a dead teenager because the optics looked so awful for them. The police's instinctive defense backfired. The national media, especially cable news networks and enterprising liberal news websites, occupied Ferguson for days on end, looking for and finding evidence that the police were out of control, that racism was everywhere, and that Ferguson resembled forsaken third world cities where footage of confrontations between police and protestors was the norm.
Whenever a witness spoke up to cast doubt on the official narrative — that the shooting of Brown was simply a homicide committed by the state....
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Well, there's a first time for everything.
Yes, the media got Ferguson wrong, by jumping to liberal politically correct conclusions.
Because a white cop was in an altercation with a black person, the liberal media lens view is that the white cop is somehow at fault.
The same narrative was involved with Trayvon. Because a white Hispanic was in an altercation with a black person, he was considered to be at fault.
The media PC world view is that, in any altercation between a black person and a non-black person, the burden of proof is on the non-black person, to prove that they didn’t provoke or enflame the situation which resulted in the altercation.
Some liberals might call me “blackphobic” or some other term of derision. I am afraid of black people, to the extent that I am afraid of getting into any sort of confrontational situation with such a person. I would be afraid of being blamed somehow for whatever happened.
In the old south, blacks were rightly afraid of getting into any confrontation with whites, because of fears of getting in trouble with the law and worse. Today, instead of equal justice, we have the reverse situation, in which all of us have to fear getting in trouble somehow with blacks, because we will be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
“Did the media get Ferguson wrong?”
They did exactly as instructed by Obama and the Rats.
George Zimmerman’s Black Ancestry is Revealed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2876811/posts
George Zimmerman: the black, Hispanic, Peruvian, kind-hearted non-white, not-racist poster boy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2876692/posts
George Zimmerman Has ‘Black Roots’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2876518/posts
I heard someone on MSLSD praising Ben Bradlee the other night. The guy claimed Bradlee revolutionized journalism by saying that journalism “was not about objectivity, it was about fairness.”
And that is exactly what our problem is today with the corrupt mainstream media.
Fake but accurate strikes again.
I think the real question is , “Did the media get ANYTHING right on Ferguson”?
No one in the media would be asking this question if their propaganda had worked the way they intended.
There’s no right or wrong in journalism, only profit and loss.
The media covered the story in the way with the most profitable “upside”.
Is water wet, the sky blue ...
Your comment is the new liberal line - the newest liberal lie...
It's not true.
The average newsroom has nothing whatsoever to do with the business side of a paper.... Every journalists understands. When a Washington Post publisher tried to break rank with that policy a few years back the Post became a laughing stock... a joke. Carville's pushing the idea.. he knows better. Shame on him.
Well-written article which makes several excellent points.
“He wasn’t unarmed, he was armed with his incredibly strong, scary self.”-—Ben Stein
"Profitable" as in profiting the progressive agenda.
The MSM is an ideologically driven political entity. If they make a few shekels in the process, its a bonus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.