Why is it that the mainstream media cannot bring itself to be impartial? Everything has a political slant. I saw this again in this morning's coverage of last night's events in Charlotte NC. There was a riot in the city following the police shooting of an armed man. Both the man who was shot and the police officer were black. Nevertheless, the news of the event started rioting. Stores were looted. Rocks and bricks were thrown at cars on I-85 from overpasses. Trucks were stopped and looted. Twelve police were injured in the melee. The media called it a protest. It wasn't a protest; it was a riot.
Let's be clear. What were these rioters protesting? It wasn't racism; both the cop and the man who was shot were black. It wasn't police misconduct. The guy who was shot had a gun. The police tell us that he would not put it down and threatened the cop who shot him. I cannot verify that story, but it is hardly something that should lead to rioting. We need to hear the facts first. In other places (like Ferguson), there were conflicting stories. The victim was unarmed. The victim had his hands up. Those stories turned out to be mostly untrue, but at least there was a narrative among the crowds that could support anger. Last night, we only had an armed man who refused multiple commands from police to put his weapon down. That's not cause for protest.
So if this was a riot, why must the media call it a "protest". The answer is clear. Protesters get special treatment. They are expressing a view, not just looting, starting fires and injuring people. We are supposed to forgive them. But these people were rioters. They should be called rioters. We cannot condone conduct of this sort; there's no two ways about it.
Let's be clear. What were these rioters protesting? It wasn't racism; both the cop and the man who was shot were black. It wasn't police misconduct. The guy who was shot had a gun. The police tell us that he would not put it down and threatened the cop who shot him. I cannot verify that story, but it is hardly something that should lead to rioting. We need to hear the facts first. In other places (like Ferguson), there were conflicting stories. The victim was unarmed. The victim had his hands up. Those stories turned out to be mostly untrue, but at least there was a narrative among the crowds that could support anger. Last night, we only had an armed man who refused multiple commands from police to put his weapon down. That's not cause for protest.
So if this was a riot, why must the media call it a "protest". The answer is clear. Protesters get special treatment. They are expressing a view, not just looting, starting fires and injuring people. We are supposed to forgive them. But these people were rioters. They should be called rioters. We cannot condone conduct of this sort; there's no two ways about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment