I'd usually be rather skeptical about people moaning about "MSM lies" etc.. but when it comes to race and especially when police killings are involved then it seems like a valid criticism.
No mention of a knife in this initial NPR tweet:
Fortunately, the bodycam footage is clearer - we don't need a Jacob Blake situation where the sex offender had turned up at his victim's house they did try to taser him twice (which didn't stop him) then shoot him just before he stole his victim's car (with their kids inside - the victim was his ex!). That prompted a load of "say his name/BLM" nonsense and various sports teams taking a knee for him.... a sex offender turning up at his victim's house with a knife! The coverage was so much that various people on social media seemed to think he'd been killed (he's very much alive and with a 7 figure payout thanks to gofundme + doesn't seem to have been charged over the incident either now).
Now we have this - she was apparently 15 last night and unarmed:
But now she's a year older, built like a brick **** house (relative to the other girl) and in the process of trying to stab someone.... screw that, this isn't something that should be national news, this is pure race-baiting nonsense.
Now look at what the NYT does to Ben [race baiter] Crump's tweet:
When they could actually report the cull context of the comments and then make the obvious correction. He's commenting on an apparently unarmed 15 year old and that isn't what happened.
It seems like, if you want more honest opinion pieces on this area you'd need to turn to smaller publications that value a bit more rigour and intellectual honesty over hype - this story by Coleman Hughes again seems relevant:
https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police
His conclusion is grim:
A third factor (not unique to America) is that we live in the smartphone age. Which means that there are millions of cameras at the ready to ensure that the next police shooting goes viral. Overall, this is a good thing. It means that cops can no longer reliably get away with lying about their misbehavior to escape punishment. (And that the claims of those accusing police in such situations will face objective video scrutiny.) But it also means that our news feeds are perpetually filled with outlier events presented to us as if they were the norm. In other words, we could cut the rate of deadly shootings by 99 percent, but if the remaining 1 percent are filmed, then the public perception will be that shootings have remained steady. And it is the public perception, more than the underlying reality, that provokes riots.
Combine all three of these observations and one arrives at a grim conclusion: as long as we have a non-zero rate of deadly shootings (a virtual certainty), and as long as some shootings are filmed and go viral (also a virtual certainty), then we may live in perpetual fear of urban unrest for the foreseeable future.
It is the media that controls a lot of that aspect, most of the general public is borderline innumerate when it comes to the stats - "all lives matter" types will point out that more white people are killed, "black lives matter" people will point out that black people are killed at a higher rate relative to the population.... in reality, what we should be more interested in is relative to police encounters, or perhaps more specifically (at least when it comes to shootings), police encounters involving violent suspects.
