An April 17 Associated Press story reported that "Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media." AP writers Carole Feldman and Emily Swanson complained that "perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they read on social media."
In a later paragraph, they confessed that "The poll shows that accuracy clearly is the most important component of trust." This is where the AP and the establishment press contantly fails their readers, listeners and viewers. As seen after the jump, an unbylined Wednesday morning AP report quite obviously and deliberately waited four paragraphs to reveal who did the pepper-spaying at a council meeting in Anaheim, California where the subject was Donald Trump.
This is not hard, guys. The newsworthy event is that someone engaged in pepper-spraying outside of a government meeting who is not in law enforcement.
So who did it? It takes four paragraphs to find out, and even then there's some lingering vagueness (HT Instapundit):
Running it down:
- Deliberately vague headline which acts as if an inanimiate substance can sprout wings and take flight on it own - check.
First paragraph reporting the pepper-spraying by a "demonstrator" which to say which side that person was on (so that people can think the worst of Trump supporters, thanks to previous press conditioning about the "violence" at Trump rallies) - check. (This especially targets those who get news headlines and teases on their computers, tablets and smartphones and don't click through to the actual story.)- Second paragraph starts to minimize the anti-Trump damage by claiming "no serious injuries" and "no arrests" - check. (Both points are incomlete or debatable, as will be seen.)
- Third paragraph on the beginnings of the incident fails to report which side started "shouting" first - check. (Seasoned readers familiar with the ways of the press know that the overwhelmingly likely instigators and/or provocateurs were opponents.)
- Wait as long as possible, in this case until the fourth paragraph, to acknowledge that "an opponent" was the perpetrator - check. (Two things here: The AP reporter knows more about the "opponent," and doesn't tell readers about that person until later. Additionally, some readers may believe that this "opponent" was a pro-Trump person who was an "opponent" of the anti-Trump resolution noted in Paragraph 3.)
As to "no serious injuries," I would suggest that the young victims would take issue with that. Here is Paragraph 5 (bolds is mine):
Five people, including two girls ages 8 and 11, were exposed to the eye-stinging spray, police Sgt. Daron Wyatt said. Three were treated at the scene by paramedics.
Pepper spray is a legitimate law enforcement tool. It is not a legitimate weapon for people not in law enforcement to use on people whose opinions they don't like, as this excerpt from the Review of Optometry web site explains:
Law enforcement officers must go through drills and simulations with live pepper spray exposures to appreciate its effects and management. Although acute exposure to pepper spray is relatively safe with appropriate and prompt first aid, serious and long-lasting damage to the ocular surface—including the cornea—can arise when medical attention is delayed or omitted.
I would contend that if an injury requires the attention of a paramedic, there's a good chance that it's "serious" in layman's terms. The fact the injury received the proper care and you were able to walk away with no long-term ill effects doesn't change that. Additionally, let's hope that the five people involved represented everyone who was exposed, because if not, someone might be seriously hurting in silence.
The next five paragraphs, most of which AP knows will hit the cutting-room floor and never be broadcast, and which many readers wont get to, fill in many of the deliberately-delayed gaps:
Comments:
- Paragraph 6 (first one above): Oh, we find out it's a man, and the police are "looking for him." I'll just bet that they "looking for him" so they can arrent him, which makes Paragraph 2's "no arrests were made" assertion deliberately incomplete.
- Paragraph 7, 8, and 9 -- I'll also bet that the kids, Ms. Zapatos and Ms. Reedy are as convinced that these injuries weren't "serious" as the AP was in Paragraph 2.
- Paragraph 10 — Oh, and imagine that: a claim of a physical assault by an anti-Trumpster. How nice of AP to wait 10 paragraphs to report that.
- Paragraph 11 — Finally, they get something right. The anger, particularly the violent anger, is on the left. Reedy, among Trump's supporters, would certainly admit to be frustrated, as would a great many other Trump suporters, as would a large majority of the rest of the country. According to Rasmussen, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that the nation is heading in the wrong direction, and have believed that for several years. But the violent anger? That predominantly comes from the left. The AP did everything in its power in this report to avoid communicating that fundamental truth about yet another such example of that violent anger from its readers.
The pair of AP writers mentioned in the opening paragraphs who complained that only 6 percent of the country has a lot of confidence in the media only need to look at this report from their own wire service to understand why that's the case.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
