John Sexton:
The left is very good at starting racial firestorms but, like irresponsible campers leaving behind an unquenched campfire, they are not so good at putting them out. What we saw in their handling of the Brown case is a rerun of the Martin case. The facts don’t seem to fit with the left’s views and even after substantial evidence comes to light showing what did happen, they refuse to believe it.
When St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch devoted about 60 seconds of his 50 minute speech to the challenge posed to the investigation by the 24-hour news cycle and “non-stop rumors on social media” he was immediately castigated by a full complement of media progressives. Van Jones, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Ryan Grim, Chris Hayes and David Corn–they all rushed to the keyboard to bash McCulloch. In fact, there is every reason to think McCulloch was right. The media treatment was reminiscent of another case, one that similarly fell apart for the left’s purposes.
Comparisons to the Martin case began with the NAACP which made the connection almost immediately. That comparison was more apt than the spokesman knew and not in the way he probably intended. In case the details are no longer in the forefront of your mind, recall that major news outlets repeatedly bungled the evidence in the Martin story and always in a way that made Zimmerman out to be something worse that he was.
You may recall when NBC News placed an ellipsis in Zimmerman’s 911 call which made it appear had offered Martin’s race as a reason he looked like he was “up to no good.” That version of events was aired several times including on the Today show. In fact, Zimmerman had mentioned Martin’s race only after the dispatcher asked him for a description.
Huffington Post and many other left wing outlets claimed they could hear a racial slur in another part of the 911 call. CNN enhanced the audio and their reporter claimed he could hear it as well. Then, a few days later, they backed off and the same reporter reversed himself. But the gasoline had already been poured on the fire.
ABC News published a video of Zimmerman entering a police station and claimed it showed no evidence of any wounds. Once again, the conclusion was that Zimmerman was lying. Then, a few days later, ABC enhanced the video and the wounds appeared. Unlike CNN’s reversal on the audio tape, the new ABC story didn’t make clear it was a correction to a previous story. Why take responsibility for an error if you can avoid it?
The NY Times initially reported that Martin could be heard screaming for help in the background of another 911 recording. The next day the Times added the fact that Zimmerman’s family thought it was his voice on the recording. Forensic evidence, eyewitness evidence and Zimmerman’s testimony all suggested it was Zimmerman calling for help, but to this day many believe what they first heard from the media, i.e. that it was Martin.
In the midst of this maelstrom of media malpractice, supposedly serious progressive commentators like Ta-Nehisi Coates were egging on the errors. (He claimed he could hear the racial slur.) Coates then tied a big bow on all of the junk reporting in a major cover story for the Atlantic which attributed pushback on all of the false media reports to a racist reaction to President Obama.
It was only after the trial was over than anyone bothered to ask Martin’s girlfriend who she thought had thrown the first punch that night. Rachel Jeantel replied, “In my mind, I believe Trayvon.” Huffington Post Live deserves credit for asking though it probably wasn’t the answer they were expecting. In any case, the admission by Martin’s friend that he likely escalated the incident to violence didn’t get a fraction the coverage the bogus reporting had received. The progressive media was only really interested in one story and this wasn’t it.
Outside the progressive media bubble there was some accountability. NBC Newsfired three people and was sued for its awful reporting. CNN and ABC got off easy (though as noted above it helped that ABC cheated by not telling readers their follow up was really a retraction and reversal of a major blunder on their part).
Looking back on all of this again you might see some similarities to the coverage of the Michael Brown shooting. Once again the media rushed forward with half-a-story. Brown was a gentle giant. An armed cop had shot the unarmed teen for no discernible reason, inviting speculation that there was an unspoken reason: racism.
Ferguson has now gone way beyond the 24 hour ‘ filler ‘ for a news cycle especially for the Liberal Media.
Can it be the liberal black folks know the gig is up? Can it be, in this rapidly changing world they are afraid of becoming irrelivant? Can it be the gravy is going to get thinned out (once 15 Million ++ illegals get amnesty)? The race card has been worn out (by them) and now they want it back? …they ‘need’ to keep the racism narrative going?? or is it their ‘masters’ (blacks of a higher political standing) who need to keep the narrative going???
Whatever the ‘problem’ is …America is getting weary of their moaning and groaning… after 50 years (going on 60 years), and tons of ‘programs’ specific to black folks ‘getting ahead in American life’ …America is getting tired of their self induced victim hood and their racism where there is no racism ‘theories’.
They are labeling themselves. The look criminal and very uncivilized to the world.
As I said elsewhere, the most inflammatory accusation made about this case was that Brown was shot in the back while trying to surrender. Almost immediately, this “eye witness account” was proven false by absolute physical proof through the autopsy. And, not just one autopsy, but several, because the family could not trust the legal authorities.
Despite this, the mantra of “Don’t Shoot, Hands Up” continues, though he neither had his hands up nor begged not to be shot (in fact, taunted Wilson to shoot him). Despite the proof, some STILL claim Brown was shot in the back while trying to run away (apparently, he was running away, on his knees, with his hands up). The left does not care about any loss of credibility when their scurrilous claims are easily proven false because no one holds them accountable for the lies; how can they when the liars are those who would normally hold a liar accountable… the media?