Media: “Police Shoot Unarmed Black Teenager”

Most of the media coverage dealing with the aftermath of the death of a young man in Ferguson, Missouri has featured headlines or leads which are a variation of the title of this piece.

On its face, the text seems unobjectionable and straightforward.  But look deeper; it’s not.  I will break it down: 

 

Police  -  what does that mean, that a group of officers did it?  That the action was a concerted effort?  But the killing was not.  A single police officer was involved.  So why was the plural used?

Shoot  - That term signifies aggression.  But was the shooting justified, resulting from self-defense or some other legitimate reason?

Unarmed  -  Does that mean defenseless?  Posing no threat? Did the police officer know he was no danger to himself or others but shot him anyway?

Black  -  He was shot because of that fact?  The shooting was racially motivated?

Teenager  -  He was between thirteen and nineteen years of age, young and immature - apparently no threat to a police officer, or so the term implies.   In reality, this teenager was an eighteen year old adult who was a large man approaching three hundred pounds.

 

How about this as an alternative headline:  “Police Officer Shoots Man after an Apparent Struggle”?   This is an accurate description of what was known at the time and is not loaded with innuendo.

 

But, of course, this simply won’t do for those who share a bias against the police, and who presume that the fact that the officer was white and the person shot was black raises the prospect of racism.

I am not suggesting that every outlet using the deceptive headline or variation reflected such an agenda.   Undoubtedly, many gave it little thought and used the substance of the suspect headline since others did so as well (including Fox News which is usually alert to liberal catch-phrases).

But it illustrates how implicit assumptions can affect supposedly objective reporting.  In this case, the result may have added fuel to the sentiment of protesters and rioters in Ferguson, Missouri that the dead young man was a blameless victim of racist police. 

*****

In the days following the shooting, facts have been revealed which don’t fit the media’s suggestion that the officer was unjustified in shooting the  “unarmed black teenager”. 

The autopsy established that Michael Brown was struck by six bullets, five hitting the front of his body and one striking the top of his head.

The police officer’s girlfriend has said that he told her that Brown bull-rushed him (head down, charging forward  -  visualize a bull aiming for the matador’s cape).  That would explain the bullet entering the top of his skull.

But why five other shots?  Brown was shot repeatedly, the girlfriend (a cop herself) suggested because he kept coming forward (there was some evidence that he may have been on drugs, marijuana for sure).  What other reasonable explanation, after all, could there be for a police officer nearly emptying his handgun in broad daylight on a public highway?

Sure, the cop could have gone berserk, stood over Brown after shooting him down and pumped more bullets into him…  and shoot him in the top of his head, too?  I don’t consider that a reasonable explanation.  Do you?