No - The Cops Didn't Murder Sean Bell (Heather MacDonald Slams Drive By Hustlers Alert)

Frontpagemag.com ^ | 12/05/2006 | Heather MacDonald

[goldstategop]

Those Dirty, Rotten Cops. The Left never says Demagogue Drive By Hustlers. One is dirty and compromised. The other is just a public interest crusader.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Drive By Media and Drive By Hustlers are soulmate buddies. They both shoot up a place creating mayhem, confusion and panic before leaving and carooming onto the next scene.

When you say it, it's obvious. My point is that it's just as obvious that their self-interest is identical. That there is no reason in fact or in logic to suppose that we have any obligation to kowtow to the supposed "objectivity" of Big Journalism.

[longtermmemmory]

Newspapers don't make money providing facts, they make money selling crisis.

Race Baiters don't get political power providing solution, they make money providing an issue.

Perhaps we should have a law requiring retractions and corrections to be posted in a maner which is the identical size and location of the error.

[Recovering_Democrat]

When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the party twice tried to run him down. The officer started firing while yelling to the car’s occupants: “Let me see your hands.” His colleagues, believing they were under attack, fired as well, eventually shooting off 50 rounds and killing the driver, Sean Bell. No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began.

NEVER MENTIONED BY THE LAMESTREAM PRESS!
So that means it isn't true, right?

[goldstategop]

They're both ugly sores on the body politic and while they can still exert influence, they're contradicting. But the damage they've done will remain until their collapse is complete and who knows how long that will take.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[longtermmemmory]

Its going t take a long time I am afraid.

It will be like CBS is still being viewed by the 65+ set for news.

We may end up with Google Daily Newspaper for those oldsters who refuse to join the 20th century. (let alone the 21st)

[Jezebelle]

I don't think journalists are just interested in job security. They have a political agenda which, by and large, is left wing.

[Jezebelle]

All of Queens is made up of black neighborhoods? I was unaware of that.

[wtc911]

Your initial statements:

"When the residents become tired enough..."

"As long as the residents are going to support this particular strain of racism..."

Your current statement:

"All of Queens is made up of black neighborhoods? I was unaware of that."

_____________________________________

I pointed out that you blame the resident of Queens and that out of over 2,000,000 of them fewer that 200 showed up to protest and your reply is flippant. I see that you are one of the new freepers who are not to be taken seriously.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don't think journalists are just interested in job security. They have a political agenda which, by and large, is left wing.

You don't think journalists want to get/keep jobs? You don't think editors want their newspapers to be influential and financially successful?

Of course they do. And the way they learned to do that is to always meet their deadlines, to select stories based on emotional impact, "if it bleeds, it leads." I am saying that what makes a newspaper successful is what drives a newspaper to be liberal. Only "liberal" isn't the right word. It's the exact same attitude, but in a journalist it's called "objective."

I am saying that successful newspapers are shallow, negative to the point of cynicism, and arrogant. Looked at it from an economic standpoint you can understand why it would be that way - and looked at from a political perspective, it is leftism. Because all leftism is is second guessing the people who are responsible to get things done. People who actually do things can always be second guessed, and leftism is nothing but second guessing. That's why when a liberal like x42 got into executive office he didn't do the job of president, he simply kept doing the job he was good at - which was running for president. Permanent campaign.

[Jezebelle]

The operative word in my first sentence you missed is "just", as in yes, they are concerned about job security but it isn't their only agenda item by a long shot.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I think you're over-thinking the entire matter. Yes, they want to keep their jobs but the leftism isn't as abstract nor as necessarily tied as closely to the process of journalism as you state. For one thing, journalism has been around for a very long time. It's been in this country since we landed at Plymouth Rock, basically, but it only became a strong instrument of the left in the last fifty or so years.

At any rate, I subscribe more to the Fifth Column theory, which is really a cart-before-the-horse argument in terms of our discussion. I think leftists seek out journalism careers because they have an agenda to undermine and bend this country to their will and their world view, rather than them conforming to the demands of the industry as being the sole reason for journalism being leftwing.

[Jezebelle]

Look, I couldn't care less about Queens. I view NYers as a bunch of commie card-carrying lefties anyway, and at the very least they're rats. This isn't just a matter of who showed up to protest or how they vote. For all I know the protesters were bussed in. It doesn't matter. It has more to do with their world view, including how they, or any other heavily black and/or inner-city neighborhoods view race and the police, the whole nine yards, in this country. If they're going to let people like Jackasson and Sharpton speak for them and make accusations against the police constantly and shake down the taxpayers, then the police should just leave them to their crime and street life. I see no reason for cops making $30k-$50k a year to risk his or her life for a bunch of people who want to jump at their throats and condemn them, fire them, jail them, call them names, drag them through court, every time there is anything questionable about a police shooting of a black person only - not anybody of any other color - just black - before the investigation is complete, or even afterward, for that matter. To hell with them. If there truly are good people living in those neighborhoods, then let them stand up and speak and tell Jesse and Al to STFU. Then I'll respect them.

[wtc911]

As I said, you are not to be taken seriously.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The operative word in my first sentence you missed is "just", as in yes, they are concerned about job security but it isn't their only agenda item by a long shot.

Of course I agree that people who dedicate their careers to writing contemptuous articles about the people upon whom we (and they) depend for food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and security have political issues a priori which make that project congenial to them. My point is not to reject that. My point it to delegitimate the very idea that anyone should in principle accept journalism, or any other industry, as the definition of the public interest.

The Second Amendment comes much closer to saying that I should have a gun to serve the public interest (in a "necessary" militia) than the First Amendment comes to saying that the Sulzberger family should have a printing press to serve the public interest. At a time when dialog between the WH press secretary and a reporter can go,

Reporter: The news from Iraq is all bad.

Tony Snow: You aren't reporting the good news from Iraq.

Reporter: Bad news sells, good news is boring.

Reporter: What are you doing about the bad news from Iraq?

it is not (remotely) too much to say that journalists conflate their interest with the public interest. And in fact and logic there is precisely zero justification for that attitude. The only justification for that attitude is that, with their propaganda power, they can get away with it. But here on FR, that should cut no ice at all - and that is my point.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I think you're over-thinking the entire matter. Yes, they want to keep their jobs but the leftism isn't as abstract nor as necessarily tied as closely to the process of journalism as you state. For one thing, journalism has been around for a very long time. It's been in this country since we landed at Plymouth Rock, basically, but it only became a strong instrument of the left in the last fifty or so years.

Larry Sweigart (FReeper LS) says he's writing a book on the topic of the political tendency of journalism in the past 50 years; I will be very interested in his conclusions. Because if you read Ann Coulter's Treason, you will understand that at the very dawn of the 1950s Big Journalism executed a jihad against people (Whittaker Chambers, Senator Joseph McCarthy) precisely because they were right about Communist infiltration in the US government. So IMHO it won't do to say that leftist activism in journalism has been building up over the past 50 years; it was in full flower at the dawning of that time period.

At any rate, I subscribe more to the Fifth Column theory, which is really a cart-before-the-horse argument in terms of our discussion. I think leftists seek out journalism careers because they have an agenda to undermine and bend this country to their will and their world view, rather than them conforming to the demands of the industry as being the sole reason for journalism being leftwing

. . . and my point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. If you are willing to do the work of a journalist I think you are not conservative.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[kellymarie24824]

I do agree with you that police officers do have a very difficult job to do. I also agree that when there is a white police officer that is forced to kill a black man... there are many more repercussions for him than for those people who are just plain murderers. However I am totally opposed to everything else in your article. Those officers never announced themselves as the police. When Sean Bell and his friends were leaving the club and saw plain clothed men pointing guns at them, I would have done the same thing as they did. Try to drive away as quickly as possible. How can you honestly say that anyone firing 50 shots at men who never once fired back (because they were unarmed) can be justified? I think that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Personally I don't know if this was racially motivated...I doubt it was. I think that it is just plain irresponsibility and abuse of their law enforcement priveledge on the part of those officers. These men may have had a criminal background, and maybe it did have to do with guns, but not one of those officers knew who they were or their background when they started firing. I believe I remember one news story in which an officer had been quoted as saying that they thought the men exiting were other people...the real reason why the police were there. So that right there shows that they were just firing at anyone. They had the nerve to shoot at these men 50 times and it wasn't even the people they were looking for? And you don't think that's careless?? I understand that police have a hard job to do, but they are the ones who took the job. It was their decision to enter this occupation, which everyone knows is a dangerous and hard one, and it was their negligence that took these innocent men's lives.