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
So it's only real news if there are witnesses? ::sigh::
ReplyDeleteThe police have stated in a press conference that base on the experience of their investigator's that they believe the victim is credible.
ReplyDeletehttp://abc13.com/news/sikh-mans-shooting-investigated-as-hate-crime/1785886/
Now, let me explain this. The police are actually stating that, at this point, they have no evidence to prove that the story or the victim is credible. What they are saying is that their investigators believe the story and victim to be credible. This can mean one of three things: 1) the investigators have a lot of experience in interviewing and statement analysis and find the victim and his story are credible, or 2) the investigators have little experience in interviewing and statement analysis and are guessing the victim and the story are credible, or 3) the police department is more worried about being politically correct than questioning the veracity of the victim. The police may have limited understanding also of Sikh culture and Sikh behavior and, therefore, lack the ability to determine truthfulness in this particular person.
If no one is caught, the police come off looking okay since they didn't question the victim's truthfulness. It is a safer approach than saying they do not yet have proof of a stranger assault.
So, how should the media report this update? They chould simply give the statement the police gave (regardless of my explanation) and leave it at that. But, better, they could actually question the police as to proof that the incident occurred (a thing called investigative reporting which doesn't much exist anymore) and then write a more thorough story.
But, regardless, they should stick to the facts.
Selina,
ReplyDeleteYou have completely missed the point of the story.
No, you don't need a witness to make it "real" news. Even a witness might not make it that. The problem is reporting something as fact where there is no proof (at least yet) that it IS fact. The only FACT we have is a Sikh man in Washington state has claimed he was shot by a white racist. CLAIMED. Now, we know this an Indian man was truly shot by a white racist in Kansas because there was actual physical proof. Yes, witnesses in this case, but they saw him shot and they saw the man who did it and they heard what the man said.
In this case, no one saw the man shot or the man who shot him or heard what anyone said. We only have the Sikh man saying this is what happened. Now, if the police have a video of a man running away or they can prove the Sikh man was shot from a distance that would eliminate him as holding the weapon or someone confesses to it, yes, then one can report that this incident actually occurred. Until then, one must say "TOLD" or "CLAIMED". The Washington Times reported the case accurately.
To Jack,
ReplyDeleteI didn't publish your comment because I am not here for a political debate. Also, my concern with the news isn't political; it is that I am frustrated that I cannot believe what I read because the media is not sticking with facts when they report. I see a very serious problem with this, even with small news stories. CNN reported a 550 pound woman was rescued after being stuck in her livingroom chair for over eight months. She was being brought food (proven) but did she really never get up for eight months? There was zero proof this was true. It might have been true for a few days or even a week or maybe more, but seven months? Some media outlets actually reported over a year! Where did they get this info? Well, the man who brought the food once a day, said he hadn't see the woman out of the chair in a while (but that was just during the time he came by). Another outlet seems to have decided on July because that was the last time a certain check was mailed (as if there might not be another reason she stopped sending the checks). In other words, the story really only was a very large woman was taken from her house in poor condition and the house also was quite appalling. Yet, the media just made stuff up to add to the story. This is "fake news." And if I can't believe them in one story, then I have to doubt their veracity on other stories.
I have found The Washington Post to be the very worst creator of fake news and it frustrates me because it is my hometown newspaper.
I have copied and posted this comment minus political buzz words (not that they were incorrect in any way; it just starts issues!)
ReplyDeleteHI PAT, you know how the media works, or dosent, i can share that concern in your views, upon a story of home town reporting, and what the police think, are at odds until any conclusion can be fully established on evidence, not political correctness, but common sense never to assume anything in a strange story used for bihest, guns have been a problem in any political climate, stupid to think otherwise, so i see your concerns about reporting fake news.
To previous commenter,
ReplyDeleteA police department always is beholden to political issues, unfortunately. They try not to cut their own throats while trying to protect the public. So, they have spoken carefully.
However, the media has misspoken and that is on purpose.
This is fascinating! Now, after all these media outlets have reported the story, a woman comes forward who is a tenant on the property and claims she saw her landlord being shot. Wouldn't she have been the one to call the police? Wouldn't the other media outlets know this at the time they wrote their stories? Wouldn't they say, "Sikh man shot by white racist; tenant calls police"? Wouldn't they have immediately used the witness' statement to verify the story as being true? Even the police in their press conference never mentioned a witness, just that the experience of their detectives led them to believe this incident really happened. Hey, if a woman calls 911 to report she just witnessed her landlord being shot and keeling over to the ground, I don't think I need to just "believe"; I would be able to state there was evidence via an unrelated witness.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/us/washington-sikh-shooting/
HI PAT, certainly right about this story being strange, it looks like they have star witness to shed some light on the mans story, but what a balls up?
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:21
ReplyDelete::laughs:: balls up? Did I write that somewhere?
Now, there is another version of the story!
ReplyDelete"The 39-year-old Sikh man was working on his car in his driveway in Kent, Wash., just south of Seattle, when a man walked up wearing a mask and holding a gun." Washington Post
Okay, so one story is that the masked man walked up to the Sikh and started at argument which turned into a tussling match and then the man PULLED A GUN.
Now, the man is walking up HOLDING a gun.
Which is it media? Are you misreporting or did the man tell two different stories? See the problem?
Yet more things that make no sense:
ReplyDelete"Kent Police Chief Ken Thomas said no arrests have been made yet after the victim was shot in the arm but that he did not believe anyone was in imminent danger."
What? A masked violent racist with a gun who has already specifically shot a stranger, a Sikh immigrant, is NOT a threat to the community?"
The only reason that should be is if the police know the story is NOT true.
If the story IS true, the Police Chief is negligent in his duties of assuring public safety for the citizens of his area.
Now one news outlet says the Sikh said that the man walked up on foot. He was outside in the driveway working on his car...even though it was dark and rainy. Another story says the man asked him if he was cleaning his car.
ReplyDeleteSo, what what the alleged victim doing with the car in the rain? Fixing it? Cleaning the outside of it? Or cleaning the inside of it?
And if it was dark and rainy, what did the tenant supposedly see? Where was she? How well could she see? Was the driveway lit up? Was it drizzling or pouring?
If one writes a news story, one ought to relate things accurately and not half-assed. If one cannot do so, one should wait until one can get the facts clearly in hand and THEN write the article. But, now that we have a 24/7 news cycle, no one takes the time to be sure the facts are correct and clear; it is just important to get something, anything out. But, then, if this is what is being disseminated, the news media cannot claim to be putting out true news.
It will be important for the police to find the bullet. Is it in the man's arm? If not, where is it? Where is the shell if there is one?
ReplyDeleteAlso, why did the man ask if the alleged victim was cleaning his car? Weird thing to ask unless that was an icebreaker or the full sentence was "Why are you cleaning your car in the rain?"
An investigator has to question if the alleged victim claimed this to cover for the fact he might have washed his hands (to remove gunshot residue.
Half-assed news stories leave more questions than answers. Sometimes the network needs to stop delving into something if it isn't going to do a complete job.
Perhaps just say, a Sikh man has told police he was shot around 8 pm by a white man of a certain description who walked up to him while he was outside his home. Police would like anyone with information to contact them.
Remember that CNN report about a witness who saw the alleged victim being shot? How I thought that was weird that she didn't immediately call 911 or that the fact there was a witness wasn't reported by all the media right away?
ReplyDeleteWell, turns out more FAKE NEWS! Yep, there was NO witness! What we have is a tenant who lives in the house who the alleged victim told her what happened after the fact and showed her his hurt arm.
http://www.wcvb.com/article/sikh-man-shot-in-washington-state-allegedly-told-to-go-back-to-your-country/9093587
The tenant also apparently did not hear a gunshot.
ReplyDeleteHI PAT, correct pat, she saw nothing, and cannot bare a false testimony it was a white man? Thats the truth, despite the story the man gave to the police?
ReplyDeleteAnon 5:29,
ReplyDeleteI don't think the tenant gave false testimony. If you listen to the clip, she says her landlord told her what happened and showed her his arm. At no point does she say she witnessed the event. It was CNN that reported she witnessed the event. So it seems to be CNN that gave false testimony.
WTF?
ReplyDeleteNOW, the UK paper, The Mirror, claims there were two OTHER witnesses!
"The incident took place on Friday, at around 8 pm just outside the man’s house. According to police reports, it appears that the Sikh member was repairing his vehicle when he was approached by an unknown individual.
The man and his assailant have had a rather intense argument. Authorities stated that overhearing the two arguing in front of the Sikh member’s car, two more individuals walked up to them, in order to render assistance.
However, at one point, it appears that the assailant drew out his gun and shot the Sikh member. Eyewitnesses declared that as the man was walking away from the scene, he kept telling the wounded person to go back to his own country because there is no place for him here."
http://www.mirrordaily.com/sikh-member/210797/
So, if THIS is true, how come no other paper has reported this? Why does The Mirror claims "police reports" say this. Why would The Mirror have access to police reports prior to local Washington news outlets or American outlets?
Every day the "facts" on this story change! And the media wonders why we do not trust them.
Also, if you note, in one story, the SIkh man says the assailant told him to go back to his country. In another story, he blacked out and when he came to he realized he had been shot. These new "witnesses" say that they heard the assailant tell the alleged victim to go back to his country as "he walked away." So, if the Sikh man was unconscious at that moment, how did the Sikh man hear the assailant say that, too?"
ReplyDeleteHere FOX plays the game of "telephone" news reporting by repeating what CNN said about the tenant witnessing the crime. Hey, FOX, don't you know CNN has "false news?"
ReplyDeletehttp://fox43.com/2017/03/06/sikh-mans-shooting-in-washington-investigated-as-hate-crime/
HI PAT, very clear some one is lying, and thank you pat for bringing up the discrepencies in bad reporting, and the changes in the stories, definatley strange, these idiots dont cross reference a lie in false news?
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:48
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is they don't really care any more about accuracy or truth; they just want to fill space. Sadly, there are repercussion to bad reporting: slander, outrage over stuff that isn't even true, etc. I won't do print or taped interviews anymore because I am rarely quoted properly or within context. And rarely do the reporters REALLY want my expert opinion; they just want filler.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
The problem is that the reported crime is covered in the news and then when/if it is proven to be false, that is not reported. I don't want anyone to be a victim and that includes the person/race/gender that was accused.
Sometimes the crime is reported on social media and then when law enforcement comes to speak with them they don't want to talk about it.
Too many times the accuser is wanting to advance their agenda OR just wanting to collect from a Go-fund-me account. Problem with that is, if its fake and you spend the money, then YOU have committed the crime.
Yes, Rob, one problem is careless agenda driven reporting. The second problem is political correctness and name calling. The third problem is our society taking on a black/white viewpoint of everything (this is not a race black/white. For example, you are 100% for or against the victim. You are 100% for or against a cause. You are 100% for or against a political candidate or party. If one tries to take a measured view, accusations can fly in from either side or both.
ReplyDeleteThis crime should have been reported as a claim by a citizen that he was attacked and that the police are working on it. Until there is proof, substantial proof that this crime actually occurred as claimed, the reporting should have been very limited. Instead, the story was written about as an absolute event and has become a huge talking point and is spearheading all kinds of hate crime stuff and anti-immigrant flack. Of course, this is exactly what the media wants. Instead of a careful initial report so AS NOT to start riots in the street, they jumped on the incident and now there is all to-do bout it.
It is not that I am not concerned about the safety of immigrant citizens being targeted by nutters, but I am also concerned about our society being misled by the media and the media fanning the flames of discontent....but, then, that is what makes news (even though the media is to disseminate the news, not create it).
I am curious why no one has reported hearing the shot.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the composite? Yes, the man was said to be about 6 foot, dressed in black, white, with half his face covered. But, the Sikh and this man supposedly argued in the driveway. If I were staring at a man with his face half-covered by, perhaps, a bandana, and I hadn't quickly retreated into my house (which one would expect would be done), I would have noted his hair and eyes. Was the man bald, shaved, or did he have blonde, brunette, black hair, short, long? Blue eyed? Brown eyed?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the composite?
HI PAT, there are errors with the story, since they were close enough to have a scuffle, and a better description of mr x in the process where no cry for help, emitted in stuggle, and bottom mask not slipping once in whatever happend between them, before a gun was pulled with no silencer mentioned for the dubious no shot heard by anyone deepens the mystery beyond logical reality?
ReplyDelete