Kudos: WaPo Succeeds In Offering Objective Reporting on St. Louis Police Shooting

October 10th, 2014 4:15 PM

While outlets like MSNBC seem keen on exploiting the police shooting death of Vonderrit D. Myers to breathe new life into racial tensions stoked by the Michael Brown shooting, the Washington Post's Wesley Lowery and Kimberly Kindy can be commended for objective, balanced reporting noting "Few parallels between latest shooting, Ferguson" in the October 10 paper. 

While Lowery and Kindy did note the reaction of Myers's family, they also reported that ballistic evidence confirms that the officer in question was shot at, ostensibly by Myers, on whom a stolen 9mm handgun was found. Myers was on house arrest for a felony gun charge -- his trial would have been in mid-November -- and he was supposed to be wearing an ankle bracelet which monitors his location.

Lowery and Kindy also noted how the police getting out in front with the information early on has helped satisfy community leaders who might otherwise have been suspicious of the local police:

Chris King, a community leader and editor of the St. Louis American newspaper, said he spoke with [St. Louis Police Chief Sam] Dotson and said the physical evidence seems to support the officer’s account of what happened at the scene.

He credited Dotson with quickly disclosing details of the event.

“The things that drove people crazy about Ferguson was Mike Brown laid on the ground for hours. There was no police report.”

Police shootings are always serious matters deserved thorough and unbiased investigation, regardless of officer or victim in question, regardless of the races of the parties, and regardless of the larger political considerations or opportunities to be had from sensational headlines. Kudos to the Washington Post staffers for an objective story centered on the facts.

Here's hoping that news networks will likewise remember that every incident of police shooting is a unique set of circumstances and that true justice requires a full and fair investigation of the peculiar facts of the case rather than a glossing over of the same in service of a larger ideological or political narrative.