The Washington Post has this database of Police shootings involving civilians. The idea behind it is some sort of tracking and accountability, but I will let them explain it with their own words:
OK, so at least they admit they are after shootings that can be used for political purposes and screw it if the evidence shows the officer was right. It is not the first time that a newspaper does that kind of political data gathering and processing, in fact we in Florida are used to the Tampa Bay Times Stand Your Ground Database from which Gun Control has cherry-picked the numbers they want, but even then it goes against them.
Let’s get back to the Washington Post database: What kind of poor minority victims have been felled by the racist police forces of the Nazi United States? Here is one:
No, it is not a joke. The Ohio State Slasher/Crusher from yesterday. My guess is that WaPo thinks poor Abdul accidentally drove into a bunch of students (probably racist Trump supporters) who went after him for his poor driving skills and he was forced to grab a knife, get out of the car, chase them and stab them in self-defense. At that moment, a racist university cop showed up and instead of trying to solve the situation spraying Abdul with a can of Unicorn Farts (proven to be more effective that Star Trek’s phasers set on stun), he used his KKK/NRA provided gun to shoot the poor Somali immigrant to death. Yeah, I buy that.
Here are some other examples of “bad/suspicious police shootings” according to WaPo:
And the examples above were extracted just from the first line of the database! In fact, I did not reach halfway through it to realize this is just a political hack job against cops. The overt mention of Michael Brown and Black Lives Matters tell us that much.
How the WaPo can lower themselves to be such a journalistic scum? Ironically the answer is given by their competitor, the New York Times in a Facebook advertisement.
“Fact-based reporting” sounds professional enough, until you remember that the base of a great lie resides in founding it in a kernel of truth and build from it. Don’t forget that their definition of reporting is not “a usually detailed account or statement” as it says in Webster but creating a political narrative that fits their views and goals which are not necessarily the best.
As usual it’s about twisting that kernel of truth into a pretzel to fit ‘their’ definition of the truth that matches their agenda!
That’s why it is referred to as the Washington Compost inside the Beltway due to the garbage it spews on a regular basis
I’m reminded of one of People Magazine ‘s annual “Guns R Teh Evil” issues from the early ’90s. The theme was “childhood victims of guns “, with several of the ‘child victims’ being 16-20 year old criminals killed by other criminals and one who shot a cop and got centerpunched for his trouble. All this admitted right in the copy.
Narrative Uber Alles, y’all.
Hoooooly shit! This has gone from the outrageously egregious at warp speed smack into the center of the surreal kingdom! Not one WaPo editor saw this scandal and screamed “Stop the presses!”??? Where is the public outrage? I live in the DC area and I have not bought that rag in more than 20 years. Thanks Miguel, for wading into the filth and keeping us apprised of what is going on. If not for you and your fellow bloggers, I would be unaware of these crimes against the free press. It underscores the irrelevance of the “mainstream media.” And you all do it for free! You guys are true American Heroes, and you should all be decorated for bravery.
Thank you!
“Not one WaPo editor saw this scandal and screamed “Stop the presses!”??? ”
The editors probably sanctioned this crap.
I said it in another post: I am no longer giving journalists the benefit of the doubt about their mistakes. In this day and age, if I can dig the raw info with a simple Google search, journalists have zero excuse to propagate bad information unless they are doing it on purpose.
You hit the mark on “fact-based reporting” as distinct from reporting facts. Back in the 1930’s a British former ad writer explained that, if you said your product was “made from pears”, it had better be mostly pears. If you said “made with pears”, it could be a peck of pears mixed with a truckload of turnips. Maybe we need a new literary category: “current events fiction”.
“Here are some other examples of “bad/suspicious police shootings” according to WaPo:”
WaPo in the database or surrounding explanations, never describes any of these shootings as “bad/suspicious.” Neither do they call them any other terms, such as justified, righteous, or unjustified. This particular set from them is apolitical. In fact, this DB is very useful as a starting point for a researcher to prove beyond a doubt that police are NOT targeting young black males. I fear you’ve let your past experiences with WaPo tarnish your judgement of this information, which is truly useful.