Proof that The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, and CNN Spread Fake News
So, of course, read this story about this Sikh man being shot. I read it in the Washington Post and something about it bothered me.
'Go back to your own country': Sikh man shot in his driveway in suspected hate crime.
Then, I read it in the New York Times and something bothered me.
Officials in U.S. and India condemn shooting of Sikh man in Washington state
And then on read it on the NPR website and something bothered me.
Sikh man shot outside his Seattle home: Told 'Go back to your own country.'
And then I read it in the Washington Times and I saw what bothered me.
Indian Sikh reports being shot in arm: Police seek suspect.
The Washington Times was the ONLY media outlet of these four which reported accurately and truthfully. Not only was the headline correct, but the content of the article was correct as well.
Considering what facts existed at the time these articles were written, we can only know this:
A Sikh man in the state of Washington reported that at around 8 pm a white male with his face half- covered got into a physical altercation with him, shouted "Go back to your own country!", pulled a weapon and shot the Sikh man in the arm.
Note the most important word in the above statement, "Reported." Yes, "Reported." In other words, none of the media outlets say there were any witnesses to the claimed event. All they had was the word of the Sikh gentleman.
Now, the Sikh man may be telling the entire truth. The event may have occurred exactly as he claims. However, it is also possible the man could have shot himself in the arm while, say, cleaning a weapon, and then claimed he was shot by a white racist. He could have made up the scuffle because gunshot residue would be on him if he shot himself and, therefore, he coudn't simply have someone shoot him from afar.
As a profiler, the story raises an eyebrow for me. Normally, a racist who wants to shoot someone down - as that man did with the Indian man who was killed recently in a Kansas bar - will shoot the victim in the chest or head. Not the arm. Unless he was a bad shot or a scuffle really did occur. But, why would an armed man who covers his face to protect his identity get into a scuffle with his victim rather than just shoot him as he drives by? And where did this masked man come from? Did he just walk up or did he drive up? Where did he go after the shooting? And why would you argue with a man wearing a mask instead of quickly retreating to your house and safety? This is a strange story....possibly true...but strange.
So, how should this incident be reported? Exactly as the Washington Times did. They used the word "told" throughout the entire story because that was factual. The Sikh man TOLD the police his story and the police are following up by searching for a suspect (and probably looking into the story itself).
The other outlets - those fine outlets who claim they report only the truth....did not. These other three stated AS FACT that a white man shot a Sikh and shouted "Go back to your own country." These three media outlets are liars.
Now, if more facts come out and the Sikh man turns out to be telling the absolute truth, THEN and ONLY THEN should any headline read "Sikh man shot by white racist" and the content then can include all of the statements these media rags have already put wrongfully in their stories today.
Indian Sikh reports being shot in arm: Police seek suspect.
The Washington Times was the ONLY media outlet of these four which reported accurately and truthfully. Not only was the headline correct, but the content of the article was correct as well.
Considering what facts existed at the time these articles were written, we can only know this:
A Sikh man in the state of Washington reported that at around 8 pm a white male with his face half- covered got into a physical altercation with him, shouted "Go back to your own country!", pulled a weapon and shot the Sikh man in the arm.
Note the most important word in the above statement, "Reported." Yes, "Reported." In other words, none of the media outlets say there were any witnesses to the claimed event. All they had was the word of the Sikh gentleman.
Now, the Sikh man may be telling the entire truth. The event may have occurred exactly as he claims. However, it is also possible the man could have shot himself in the arm while, say, cleaning a weapon, and then claimed he was shot by a white racist. He could have made up the scuffle because gunshot residue would be on him if he shot himself and, therefore, he coudn't simply have someone shoot him from afar.
As a profiler, the story raises an eyebrow for me. Normally, a racist who wants to shoot someone down - as that man did with the Indian man who was killed recently in a Kansas bar - will shoot the victim in the chest or head. Not the arm. Unless he was a bad shot or a scuffle really did occur. But, why would an armed man who covers his face to protect his identity get into a scuffle with his victim rather than just shoot him as he drives by? And where did this masked man come from? Did he just walk up or did he drive up? Where did he go after the shooting? And why would you argue with a man wearing a mask instead of quickly retreating to your house and safety? This is a strange story....possibly true...but strange.
So, how should this incident be reported? Exactly as the Washington Times did. They used the word "told" throughout the entire story because that was factual. The Sikh man TOLD the police his story and the police are following up by searching for a suspect (and probably looking into the story itself).
The other outlets - those fine outlets who claim they report only the truth....did not. These other three stated AS FACT that a white man shot a Sikh and shouted "Go back to your own country." These three media outlets are liars.
Now, if more facts come out and the Sikh man turns out to be telling the absolute truth, THEN and ONLY THEN should any headline read "Sikh man shot by white racist" and the content then can include all of the statements these media rags have already put wrongfully in their stories today.
And that is why, my dear media friends, you are being called "Fake News."
Criminal Profiler Pat Brorwn
March 5, 2017
Criminal Profiler Pat Brorwn
March 5, 2017
