It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NY Post, Washington Post Attempt to Hide Real Numbers of Police Killings

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:53 PM
(Not my title)

The article goes into detail about how these two media outlets have been caught exaggerating and misrepresenting data, and how the "dialogue" surrounding certain issues (like police killings) is manipulated and effectively driven by these media outlets - based on much of these bogus statistical examples.

Fifth Column News

he NY Post ran a piece of propaganda attempting to justify the murder of unarmed people by law enforcement. The outlet framed its article as a rebuttal to a piece by the Washington Post. The Washington Post article was cast as being anti-cop and the NY Post cast itself as the defenders of reality, while basing its response on the numbers provided by the Washington Post. This is how the media shapes the narrative to maintain the appearance of free debate. Each somewhat-respectable outlet established a polar position. The two outlets defined the debate. The Washington Post defined the first position with an investigation into the number of people killed by cops. It then analyzed the data and put out a report. The NY Post responded to that data.

Some examples from the article:

Of course, the data is so inaccurate it might as well have been simply fabricated. The data states that 980 people were “shot dead” by police in 2015, the inference of course being that this is number of people cops killed. The actual number of people killed by cops is 1199. That’s 219 uncounted deaths. The report then goes on to state that 91 were unarmed when they were killed. That’s a little bit of statistical propaganda itself.

In the same report, they disclose an additional 33 were “armed” with toys. Another 53 were “armed” with a vehicle. We know that in many cases these shootings are simply executions, such as the 2014 case of Samantha Ramsey. An officer jumped on the hood of the vehicle and fired four times through the windshield, killing the unarmed teen. Another 24 were killed and it is “unknown” whether or not they were armed.

The report states that only 37 of the 980 were “black and unarmed”. That’s an interesting finding. Here’s a list of more than 100 unarmed blacks killed by cops in 2015 (link found within article).

This report can’t be taken as a genuine attempt to examine the problem. Back in June, The Guardian found that 108 unarmed people had already been killed by cops. By September 1st, the number of unarmed dead had risen to 161. The only assumption we can make is that police not only failed to kill an unarmed person in the last third of the year, but they used their superhero powers to bring 70 people back to life. With this amount of statistical manipulation and outright omission of information, the Washington Post has shown the world it is nothing more than a propaganda outlet. There is no way many people will view this much insincerity as a simple mistake.

What do you think ATS?

P.S. this is a new news source to me, I'm not familiar with it but did hear about it from Mint Press, a News Outlet I do follow. ALso, here is the FAQ for Fifth Column News if anyone is curious:

P.P.S. I thought this was a fitting comic for the topic

edit on 4-1-2016 by FamCore because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:16 PM
oh this is shocking!


posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:19 PM
Propoganda begets propaganda.

Example: your link uses an incident from 2014 when talking about 2015. I can think of three incidents off the top of my head which I believe were in 2015 that would've been better examples to use.

Either way, one side (prominent on ATS) screams how you're likely to be killed any time you interact with a cop while the other side (less prominent, just as vocal) disagrees with that notion.
edit on 4-1-2016 by Shamrock6 because: I typed 2105, because apparently I thought the article was from the future.

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:31 AM

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Propoganda begets propaganda.

Indeed it does.

Either way, one side (prominent on ATS) screams how you're likely to be killed any time you interact with a cop while the other side (less prominent, just as vocal) disagrees with that notion.

And those of us who don't fall into one extreme or the other -- all cops are good or all cops are bad -- are roundly ignored.... and bad cops continue to kill and maim those who "fail to comply."

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:00 PM
I was reading an article this morning that was saying, basically, that there is no official tracking for statistics for gun violence. So when people would really like to see, "Of the ___ gun deaths in time period ___, how many were from ____" -- gang violence, LEOs shooting anyone, alleged self-defense, 'accident or mistake', etc. -- there is no way to get those numbers. Various areas sometimes seem to track one or more numbers... for a time... nothing is official and there is nothing at the national level. I consider that very bad for everyone and everything.

Recognition of very serious city violence and I don't just mean ghetto needs to happen in some areas and it never does if it just fades into the background of statistics as just one example. There's a lot of examples. We can never address the fundamentals of any problem if we won't look at the problem.

Not to be picky -- and I might add that as I have only (mostly) positive experience with Law Enforcement, I am supportive of their position in a lot of things -- but if any person in any job, certainly including LEOs, actually KILLS SOMEONE with a gun, it seems reasonable to me that there ought to be a clear record of it that someone trying to collect stats could get to. It boggles my mind to think anybody, even the police, can just shoot someone and later actually have the situation where leadership is going, "Um, we're not sure how many people we killed, well the numbers are probably this" -- and it turns out they can't be, so it's incompetence or lies or both -- that's just crazy!

new topics


log in