Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Did MSM Go Too Far in Finicum Shooting Story?

The actions of the Left are exactly as they are accusing others.

Did MSM Go Too Far in Finicum Shooting Story?

Did MSM Go Too Far in Finicum Shooting Story?

by Shari Dovale

The trial for FBI Special Agent W. Joseph Astarita continues in Portland.

The biggest news this week was the accidental naming of the officer that fired the fatal rounds into LaVoy Finicum.

Though the judge has stated that the officers involved will be referred to by euphemisms, Officer #1 was named on the stand by SWAT officer, Bob Olson.

This information was picked up by Social Media, the two most prominent postings were by BJ Soper and Ammon Bundy.

The reasoning was clear in that they were sharing the information for transparency. In spite of that, they have now been accused of multiple nefarious acts, and it has even been suggested that they are trying to have the man hurt.

However, the MSM, specifically the Oregonian, have also reported on this issue, though they seemed to have found another way to spin the story. They could have just reported on the slip up in court, but they chose to turn this against anyone that posted about the released name. This certainly gives them the chance for more headlines. The story says:

They also include:

They go on to suggest that these posts have caused security concerns within the courthouse:

Though they did not name the officer involved in the shooting, they were very clear in making sure that everyone knew how to find the name of the officer.

This all suggests that the MSM not only likes the controversy, and perpetuates the controversy, but might even be encouraging violence, just to get a headline. What other reason would they have to print a provocative article of over 1000 words like this one?

I would never want the man hurt. Yet, I also do not want the people who used his name hurt either. The actions of the Left are exactly as they are accusing others. They are suggesting that anyone naming this officer is threatening.

So, is their article, in which they will tell you how to find the name of Officer #1, as well as naming the people they feel are threatening him, considered threatening as well? Did they go too far just for a story? Or is this just another case of accepted Media Bias?

If something vicious should happen to any of the officers involved, or if something should happen to BJ Soper, Ammon Bundy, or anyone else that used the officer’s name, the blame will not automatically go to the Patriot community. It could very easily be placed at the feet of the Main Stream Media.

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

7 Comments on Did MSM Go Too Far in Finicum Shooting Story?

  1. Hiding names for “safety” sake is nonsense. They are in Law Enforcement, involved in alleged criminal activity, standing before the public court. Not a secret court.
    Public Servants should have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties…including facing their accusers in open court.
    This is how dumbed down this is….OSP officer threw his name out there. So what?
    Social media is just that. Blaa blaa.Nothingburger on the grill.
    All involved should be named in the name of justice.
    Threats? Beware the provocateur.

    • That is right, it is not a secret court.

      As far as Social Media goes, I went to a public library in Texas to look up microfiche newspapers from 1918 while doing research on the Influenza Epidemic…and saw something interesting. In the small town newspaper I was looking at there were two full pages of postings like: Such and Such left on the morning train to Dallas and returned in the evening, these ladies were at the Pentecostal social on Tuesday and such and such did not attend, a lost dog on third street, the Franklins over on Oak St. still have weiner pigs for sale.

      Just like Facebook or Twitter postings…but really slightly more intrusive in a way…who the heck wants the fact they left on the train and returned in the evening to be known by everyone in town. The Big Picture is….Social Media is not new…it is just faster and easier to use now by the public at large.

  2. Regarding FIRES: Are they intentionally being set and used like agent orange to deforest and expose the (enemy) patriots?

  3. They covered the crimes of the federal government by broadcasting it’s lies as truth. The MSM also made it their mission to attack the character and destroy the reputation of citizens protesting from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which was closed for the season. Using lies and slander, the MSM created a false narrative of the group’s intent and progress, to negatively influence the public’s perception of them.

  4. Did the MSM go to far,,,,.? When I read that headline I was expecting to read the observation I had at the very first of the Hammond Stand Off. I can call it that?
    I’m having a hard time writing this without filling the page with rhetoric because of my disgust at what whappned to LaVoy.
    Anyway to my point those interviews with LaVoy and the press the one inparticular that pressed LaVoy about his sidearm and the use of it in a future situation sent everything into motion. The reporter and his editor/producers started a firestorm of distoritions and misinformation that was fed to the attending LEO’s and the “Sheep” that consume the MSM lies.
    I knew at the time of it’s reaching TV and print news that this would end bad.
    I am relieved to see the Oregon State Trooper being exposed now the civil suits can leapfrog from there to up the food chain to Obama’s Attorney General.

  5. If there was law in America, such as the common law, which is the law form fought for but lost after the Revolutionary War, then the people themselves would command the power to accuse, try, and determine fact, law, and what constitutes remedy.

    If a false statement intentionally leads to a false accusation of someone who is innocent of having perpetrated any crime, then the one who willfully (with malice aforethought) makes the false statement – so as to cause injury to an innocent victim – is thereby guilty of that crime.

    That is not the case here, as anyone, including paid “government” agents, can make false statements that lead to false accusations, whereby those false accusations knowing will lead to very serious injuries to the innocent target, and routinely this type of employment is a “government” vocation:

    1. Agent provocateur
    2. Informant
    3. “News” reporter

    If a false statement intentionally leads to a false accusation of someone who is innocent of having perpetrated any crime, then the one who willfully (with malice aforethought) makes the false statement – so as to cause injury to an innocent victim – is thereby guilty of that crime.

    That is not the case here, as anyone, including paid “government” agents, can make false statements that lead to false accusations, that lead to very serious injuries to innocent people, and said employment is a “government” vocation:

    1. Agent provocateur
    2. Informant

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*