The New York Times has done a lot to aid and abet the Ferguson “protesters” – including rioters, looters, arsonists and assorted other scum of the earth – by spending months slanting its coverage in a racially incendiary way, while giving relatively little coverage to Darren Wilson\’s side of the story.
An excellent case in point is yesterday\’s paper, in which:
-Its lead story on Page 1 characterized the destruction, and torching of much of Ferguson\’s main street as nothing more than a “night of unrest”;
-Its lead editorial started with this paragraph…
TheSt. Louis County grand jury\’s decision not to indict the whitepolice officer who in August shot and killed Michael Brown, anunarmed black teenager, would have generated widespread anger anddisappointment in any case. But the county prosecutor, RobertMcCulloch, who is widely viewed in the minority community as being inthe pockets of the police, made matters infinitely worse by handlingthis sensitive investigation in the worst possible way.
…which framed the anarchic mayhem in Ferguson as being justifiable rage (which it was anything but);
-It published a grouping of 6 letters to the editor about Ferguson in which every one with a point of view about which side was right or wrong attacked Darren Wilson and the Ferguson police, as if the other side did not even exist.
But, as blatantly biased as all this is, it is not the worst of what the Times has done.
The worst is that, on Monday, the Times published an article which revealed Officer Darren Wilson\’s home address (I am intentionally not posting a link to the article, so as not to do the same).
Did the Times staff do it to give the lunatics who have shown us they are happy to riot, loot and burn, an opportunity to turn their tender mercies on Mr. Wilson and his newlywed wife? What other reason can you think of?
This has caused Wilson – understandably – to flee. We don\’t know where he is now.
But, apparently, if the Times finds out, it will have no compunction about printing his new address as well.
Let us never forget that a mixed-race grand jury looked at the evidence and concluded Officer Darren Wilson did nothing other than protect himself from an attacker (I get a pit in my stomach every time I see the 6\’ 4″, 292 pound, high-on-marijuana Michael Brown described as an “unarmed black teenager”, which suggests that he was some sweet little innocent being picked on just because of his skin color).
If anything happens to Officer Wilson because a mob that is uninterested in evidence, investigations, autopsy results and grand jury conclusions locates him by working from his original address, responsibility for it is directly on the New York Times.
I doubt the people there give a damn. They are beneath contempt.