New York Times Report Slanders Police
Before getting into the details of the New York Times’ report on police response to the demonstrations and riots that followed the killing of George Floyd, there are a couple of overarching issues that need to be addressed and understood.
The Times used hindsight reports of a few police departments to smear ALL police enforcement across the nation. The publication claimed that “independent inquires … revealed a widespread failure of American policing.” It is arguable whether the “inquiries” were truly “independent” since such investigations rarely are.
It is clear that – despite the claim – the inquires cited did not come close to covering the broad issue of “American policing.”
This was an example of taking miniscule, dubious and arguably biased anecdotal information and applying it to all policing. It was nothing less than a propaganda attack on American policing by constructing a false narrative on minimal questionable examples. This is just another case of starting out to prove a preconceived political premise.
What makes the New York Times’ report on the riots in the aftermath of the Floyd killing particularly noteworthy is how starkly hypocritical the same publication viewed the police response to the Capitol Hill riots. Basically, the New York Times views the Capitol Hill Police as the victims of a violent rioting mob. At the same time, they view several police departments in our major cities as provocateurs of violence against “mostly” peaceful demonstrators in the case of the Floyd riots.
One specific example of hypocrisy involves the uniforms worn by police. In terms of the Floyd riots, the Times alleges that tactical military-style uniforms and equipment – as opposed to police street attire – added to the hostility of the rioters. Yet, the same publication has reported that the reason the riots swelled on Capitol Hill was the lack of the national guard – and its tactical military attire and equipment.
The Times turns one of the basics of riot control on its head.
Professionals generally believe that a strong presence quells rioting. The New York Times even alluded to that in its previous report on Capitol Hill and the police. In view of the past reporting, this piece of investigative propaganda is amazingly hypocritical.
Consistent with the left’s contention that the police were to blame for the destructive and deadly rioting, the Times wrote that the “police officers nationwide did not prepare to calm the summer’s unrest, and their approaches consistently did the opposite.” (My emphasis.)
The Times went on to claim it was “aggressive tactics that had infuriated many of the protesters to begin with.”
The article was riddled with repetitions of this claim. “The reports repeatedly blamed police departments for escalating violence instead of taming it,” sayeth the Times.
And more. “In places like Indianapolis and Philadelphia … the actions of the officers seemed to make things worse.”
The other central criticism found in the various reports – according to the Times — was that the police lacked sufficient training in handling riotous crowds. Actually, America’s police forces – for the most part — have handled unruly crowds quite well in the past. And it takes both the show AND use of force. “Pretty please” tactics embraced by the left do not work – and never will.
Arguably, it has been the restrictions imposed on police that have created these uncontrolled situations.
The anti-police radical left opposes the use of deadly force. They also oppose the use of non-lethal rubber bullets, tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, etc. As we have seen in many cities, the tactic of choice is to order the police (or the National Guard) to stand down and watch the rioting – even to the point of passive toleration of volleys of missiles – pop bottles, fireworks, rocks, Molotov cocktails, urine, etc. etc. etc. With all those restrictions, there is no way a police force can quell a riot.
The “lack of training” and “police as provocateurs” was so prevalent and repetitious in the Times 2500-word article that if it had mentioned them only once, the opinion piece could have just been a photo caption. Essentially, those were the only two points they made – over and over and over and over and …
The Times bias against policing in the case of largely left-wing rioting and violence is not surprising. However, the amazing hypocrisy between the evaluation of law enforcement’s role in the many destructive and deadly urban riots – still going on in Portland — and the riot on Capitol Hill is astounding.
The Times article is nothing less than a politically motivated hit piece on the thousands of great men and women in blue who do “serve and protect.”
So, there ‘tis.