Difference between revisions of "How I became a Police Abolitionist"

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "The problem isn't just that the Atlantic posts divisive FakeNews that undermines our social cohesiveness, it's that when caught in it, they don't correct it and fire everyone...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 10:14, 17 July 2020

The problem isn't just that the Atlantic posts divisive FakeNews that undermines our social cohesiveness, it's that when caught in it, they don't correct it and fire everyone involved. The Atlantic fires some of the best journalists if they happen to have once written a pro-life opinion piece... but someone caught red-handed writing pieces of unverifiable fiction that claims the police murder innocents with impunity, like this article by Derecka Purnell? And the Atlantic refuses to respond to evidence showing how negligent they were in fact checking, and how dishonest this article's premise is, because that's what The Atlantic has become.


Details

“How I Became a Police Abolitionist" is an example of the worst form of red journalism. It describes how social justice activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell watched a police officer shoot a young boy in a city recreation center because he had ignored the basketball sign-in sheet. The only problem is according to all evidence (newspaper archives, police department records, and questions to The Atlantic, the police union, and the office of the mayor), it appears to have never happened. It is certainly the first mention of the incident in any publicly available record that The Federalist could find.

No other outlet had the journalistic integrity to even try to investigate The Atlantic / Purnell's fantabulous claims... and come on, in 2001-2003 (during the Bush administration) a shooting like this would have garnered local and national attention. Much of the rest of the description of the neighborhood seems more than a little overstated. But it fits their anti-American narrative, so they ran it without a cursory glance at the credibility of the story or the author... and when questioned, instead of doing the jouranlistic thing of checking the facts -- they instead obstruct and circle the wagons.


GeekPirate.small.png

 
📚 References

Fake News

FakeNewsmen.jpg
While the term goes back 100 years, the history is summed up well in a Sharyl Attkisson TedTalk on FakeNews. While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). We didn't use the term "Fake News", just liberal media bias or incompetence, but it's been around since the first liberal got sloppy or partisan at a newspaper, somewhere back in Roman times.

Then on September 13, 2016 Hillary Clinton supporters Google and Eric Schmidt, used a shell charity (a non-profit called "First Draft,") to start seeding the term to attack right wing websites ("to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports"). Hillary Clinton and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters admitted in a campaign letter that they pressured Facebook to join the effort. Google warned Conservative websites to remove stories that Google didn't like, or they'd take away their ad revenue. And Barack Obama and the liberal media followed along, regurgitating what they were told: none were going to let this opportunity (to curate what information we could see) go to waste, all in the name of protecting free speech. All coincidentally done at the same time, in what could only be a coordinated campaign attack.

Unfortunately for them, it backfired when people noticed that the mainstream liberal media made more errors and was less honest, and started throwing it back in their face. Fake News applied more to the News, Google, Facebook, Obama and other curators and finger pointers than their victims. Donald Trump used that to hijack the term and use it back against them. The left tried to change the narrative and pretend that Trump had created the term, and they wanted to stop using it and claimed it was a hateful term and an attack on free press to point out the Presses bias or errors. And that's where we are today.