No Need For Grand Jury: New York Times Finds Michael Brown Guilty!
It’s become a standard operating procedure for major US newspapers to defend and justify government action, no matter how egregious, when it matters the most, which is at the time it’s being committed, and then take it back and admit “error in judgement”, decades later, when it’s all but forgotten and matters the least. Often, their role as the state’s mouthpiece is to simply say what they’re told by authorities, without presenting any alternative viewpoint, without questioning the veracity of their statements, or pointing out contradictions or holes in their story. Pentagon officials said North Vietnamese attacked US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. White House says Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction. According to State Department, Hamas fired rockets into Israel, unprovoked. CIA has evidence that Syrian military fired chemical weapons against its own people and the National Security Agency assures us that it was the “separatist rebels” in East Ukraine, supported by Russia, who shot down the airliner. No independent investigation, no actual history or historical context, no other relevant information and no opposing views. Often, that’s enough to guide public’s thinking along the desired path and keep their consent to US policies, which in recent decades have never been defensive and been always offensive.
But, that’s not all they do. Sometimes, their cooperation with authorities amounts to a criminal partnership and conspiracy to lie and deceive both the Congress and the public. When, in 1996, Gary Webb investigated and exposed in San Jose Mercury News, the role of the CIA in the 1984 trafficking of cocaine from Nicaragua and its distribution among African Americans in South Central Los Angeles, in order to raise money for the Contras to help them overthrow the Nicaraguan leftist government, New York Times, Los Angeles times and Chicago Tribune all conspired with the CIA to discredit him and his findings, which led to Mercury News backtracking from the story and Webb losing his career, which resulted in his death with two bullet wounds in his head, which was pronounced suicide. Years later, without fanfare, they took back their position and confirmed Webb’s story. When the Bush and Cheney Administration were preparing to attack Iraq in 2003, they likewise did their part to help sell the war. There are many other examples of this, in decades past.
Now, they’re at it again, especially at New York Times, and this time, the conspiracy is against Michael Brown, an unarmed 18 year old African American man who was shot and wounded at least twice and when he had his hands up and facing the officer in surrender, was shot at least six more times, including at his head and eye and his dead body was left on the street for four hours. His sadistic killer, officer Darren Wilson, is on paid leave, a long paid vacation, that is.
Now, why the conspiracy with the help of the faithful reporters of New York Times? Because, this time, people of Ferguson will not stop protesting and demanding justice and they must somehow be pacified. The method is obvious and could have been predicted: while the grand jury is trying to decide if the officer should be indicted and stand trial, the prosecution, strangely enough, has leaked the officer’s side of the story to the media, which the Times has taken and run with it, in a totally one sided way, printing officer Wilson’s story as the undisputed truth, even before the Grand Jury comes to a decision!
Maybe it’s understandable. Maybe I shouldn’t blame them. It’s not their fault that Michael Brown isn’t alive to tell the Times reporters, who are trying him instead of the officer, his side of the story. But, any reasonable or should I say non-racist person would say he doesn’t have to be alive to tell his side. Several witnesses have already done that, with remarkable consistency, all saying exactly the same thing: that he had his hands up and was already wounded from gun shots and the officer continued to shoot and kept shooting until he was dead.
Did I say witnesses? Ah, but, I didn’t say that most of them were African Americans. Did I? Now, that changes everything. doesn’t it? So, I’m back to where I started. Maybe I can’t blame New York Times reporters. Can I? Nope! Who do you expect the Times to believe, several African American witnesses or a white officer? Look: a white police officer has an altercation with a “dangerous”, albeit unarmed black teenager and is understandably(!!) scared for his life, even though he’s the one with a gun (sounds familiar?), and continues to be scared even after shooting him at least twice; so, he proceeds to shoot him several more times, targeting his face and head and you expect New York Times reporters to not sympathize with the officer? Should I repeat myself? The one who was shot dead was a black teen who’s always dangerous even without a gun, which armed white men get scared of and shoot to death and plead “fear” which is the same as “innocent” and you expect a white supremacist paper to side with the one who got shot and killed with his hands up? On what planet or in what country have you been living?