What the New York Times dirtbags won't report

[Note added 2014-08-31:
Some media outlets are now reporting that this is false story,
that Wilson did not suffer a fracture.
We zhall see; I certainly only know what I read.]

[Note added 2014-11-25:
The St. Louis authorities released the documents presented to the grand jury yesterday.
There was no mention of the eye injury described below,
and the medical examiner photos of Darren Wilson on the day in question
show no evidence whatsoever of such an injury.
This report was a false one.
I was fooled into thinking it was likely a report of a real injury
by the specificity of the report, that Wilson
"suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture".
That's pretty specific, but events later proved it wrong.
Why would somebody make up such a story?
But anyhow, they did.
The New York Times refused to report something that they viewed as not credible,
and they were right.
I apologize for the inflammatory title to this post.
They were right to question the validity of the report,
and I was wrong in believing it credible.]

Is there any doubt that the New York Times is run by
a bunch of PC dirtbags?
If there ever was any doubt on that topic,
first, consider the FoxNews report that appeared on 2014-08-20:
then consider the following:
as of 2014-08-22 at 1400EDT,
a google search on
darren wilson fracture eye socket site:nytimes.com
found NOTHING containing all five search words.

Well, here it is Sunday, 2014-08-24 at 1700EDT.
Same search still yields NOTHING concerning the report on Wilson's injuries.
On the other hand, the Sunday print edition of the Times
features a large front page story about
the four-hour delay between when Brown was shot and when his body was removed.

And in addition to the google search method of seeing what the Times was reporting,
there is the search engine at the Times website.
dareen wilson
at that website
brings up ten suggestions for possible completions to that search phrase.
As of 2014-08-24 at 1730 EDT,
those ten suggested completions are, in order,
darren wilson
darren wilson eye
darren wilson eye socket
darren wilson injuries
darren wilson beaten
darren wilson and support
darren wilson gofundme
darren wilson orbital socket
ferguson darren wilson
darren wilson eye fracture

I presume that those suggested completions indicate are determined by
the recent history of what other users have been searching for.
They show that visitors to the Times web page are intensely interested in
reports on Wilson's injuries.
But the absolute, positive, total dirtbag editors if the Times won't report on it.
Boy, are they dirtbags.
But well-funded dirtbags.
Shows who has the power in America, if you know what I mean.
When they're not accusing anyone who criticizes them of being motivated by "hatred",
rather than having a good reason to criticize their (mis)management of information.

Between making an issue out of the equipment the police deemed necessary
to confront the looters, vandals, arsonists, and rioters
and the time it took to remove Brown's body,
the absolute dirtbags at the New York Times
will do just about anything, it seems,
to divert attention from what should be the central issue:
What did Brown do to cause Officer Wilson to deem it necessary
to use deadly force against him?
Hey, why confuse its readers with anything which might suggest that
Officer Wilson was justified in his act?

If there is a difference between the Times propaganda rag
and the Brandeis SDS,
it sure doesn't seem like much to me.

This refusal to report on the reports of real physical injury to Wilson
bears an uncanny resemblance to the reluctance of the Times
in its coverage of the Zimmerman/Martin trial
to report on the real, documented injuries
that George Zimmerman suffered at the hands of Trayvon Martin.

2014-08-26, 1730 EDT:
Google search as above still shows NOTHING containing all those words;
likewise at the Times's web site, nothing there.
Our PC Ministry of Truth is still cooking the news,
portraying blacks as victims,
while ignoring the information that would suggest otherwise.

2014-08-29, 1500 EDT
Still nothing at google,
nor at the Times web site.


Media coverage of Ferguson MO violence

The media coverage of
the Ferguson Missouri disorder over the shooting of Michael Brown
has been all but unbelievable in its bias.
They have made the police actions the issue,
rather than the actions that have caused those actions.
And their descriptions of those causing the police presence
is also astonishing in its bias.
As a case in point,
I am now looking at page C1 of the Washington Post Style section
for Friday, August 15, 2014.
Accompanying a large article by Philip Kennicott, taking up well over half the page,
are two photographs from Ferguson.

The caption on one of them is "A protestor with a Molotov cocktail",
i.e., an incendiary device.

Since when is it accurate to call a person carrying a Molotov cocktail a protestor?
The correct term is arsonist.
Why would one carry a Molotov cocktail unless he intended to
intentionally and maliciously start a fire?
And that is the precise definition of arson, according to Wikipedia.
And while we are pointing that out,
why is it that the media, at least the Washington Post,
has consistently described the events in Ferguson
as "vandalism and looting", without mentioning the arson?
Vandalism is commonly thought of as things at the level of breaking windows or writing graffiti;
arson would seem, to me at least, to be a considerably more serious crime.

And what did the Ferguson police, or anyone else, do to cause a need to set fires?

In general, the media coverage has focused on blaming the police.
The looting and vandalism were briefly mentioned,
but then ignored.
Black violence: minimized or ignored.
The reaction of the authorities to that violence: castigated.
Much of the media, moving in the lockstep mode they so often use,
has spent the past week making an issue out of
the equipment the police are using.
So what?
How is that equipment a violation of anyone's civil rights?

Labels: ,