Skip to comments.Cover-up: Media hide key fact in school shooting (...sudden turn after gunman's politics revealed)
Posted on 12/17/2013 6:49:08 PM PST by Perseverando
When Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, 2012, opening fire on schoolchildren and sending kindergartners scrambling into closets for protection, American news outlets immediately began asking the desperate question, Why?
What made Lanza into a school shooter and mass murderer? Was it his family background, his reported autism, his political viewpoints, even his time spent in homeschooling?
Thoroughly profiling the perpetrator has become the first response of the American media in every shocking crime from Sandy Hook to the Boston Marathon bombing and more.
But almost one year to the date after the Sandy Hook shooting, on Dec. 13, 2013, at the Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colo., another school shooter opened fire, and this time, the gunmans background was all too quickly swept under the rug.
Most notoriously, the Denver Post discovered in its profiling of shooter Karl Halverson Pierson that fellow students described the 18-year-old gunman as a very opinionated socialist. Yet by the next day, the Posts editors had scrubbed the word socialist from the article, replacing it with merely very opinionated.
In fact, the first words the article uses to describe Pierson are outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs a dedicated, bright student from a religious family that attends Bible study meetings.
Gone from the Post article was the socialist reference, and only much later in the article do readers learn of Piersons politics, when the Post reports Pierson mocked Republicans on Facebook, writing, You Republicans are so cute, and posting an image that reads: The Republican Party: Health Care: Let em Die, Climate Change: Let em Die, Gun Violence: Let em Die, Womens Rights: Let em Die, More War: Let em Die.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Pierson became easily aggravated, always liked to be right and didnt like losing, Davis said.)
Personally I'm wondering what's so wrong with the above.
Why I'm very familiar with a fine outstanding public servant who did the same thing when he was but a lad, but still grew up to be America's greatest President. </sarc>
No shotguns in Barrys house.
No, just 200 armed body guards. LOL!
We all know what a fine marksman Barry is! Remember that picture of him holding a shotgun?
Guess MAYBE his side won — and now wants everyone to settle down and obey?
Whatcha wanna bet he had “Rules For Radicals” in his ‘literary stockpile’ as well?
It’s been a few days but reading the Denver Post’s first article which was accurate and then reading not only the eventual Post article but also the LA Times and USA Today was indeed an educational article.
I don’t doubt it a bit.
.....and a Koran.
“Thoroughly profiling the perpetrator has become the first response of the American media in every shocking crime from Sandy Hook to the Boston Marathon bombing and more. “
This providing strong motivation for suicidal misfits who suddenly “see” a way for them to be finally understood.
Hmm, what sort of weapon to use? Well, the media says an “assault rifle” has irresistible power...almost a magical power....
"Published in 1971, the book has sold more than two million copies and influenced hundreds of malcontents, mischief makers, and killers. Police have linked it to the Croatian radicals who bombed Grand Central Terminal and hijacked a TWA flight in 1976; the Puerto Rican separatists who bombed FBI headquarters in 1981; Thomas Spinks, who led a group that bombed 10 abortion clinics in the 1980s; Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995; the Columbine High School shooters of 1999; and the 2005 London public transport bombers.
Just in the last two years, law enforcement has tied the volume to Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, the Boston Marathon bombers, and at least a half dozen alleged terrorists and school shooters."
How would the press describe Oswald today? And don’t say “dead”.
I could see it if he built a bomb but what the heck does the book, which has been out for a very long time, have to do with the attempted murders?
The Media went right for Sarah Palin’s jugular and blamed the Tea Party when Loughner shot Giffords and others in Arizona. Without even a shred of proof they blamed the right. Even after the facts came out and Loughner was proven to be a wackadoo with no connection to the right or conservatives what so ever, they continued with the false narrative for months!!
So, it only make sense when a committed left wing radical socialists commits a school shooting for the Media to scrub the “inconvenient” aspects of the shooters background and character.
The Media in America continues to be a vile, dishonest, and corrupt institution that will cover up, exaggerate and flat out lie to further its own agenda and the truth be damned!!!
Words apparently have meaning.
. . . but that assumes that the media is a single institution. Why would that be? We have lots of independent journalism institutions, dont we?
No:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Do our independent journalism institutions ever meet together? Only continuously, 24/7, since the founding of the Associated Press before the Civil War.
IMHO they don’t even need to meet - they know instinctively what they have to do because they are all part of what Marx would recognise as a “Class” that today encompasses all mainstream news and entertainment and owns pro-sport and most politicians.
Liberals love to hate monopolies, but they have every reason to love journalists. IMHO they are in a bind when faced with that argument. My argument is a direct threat to the conceit of journalistic objectivity. The reality being, of course, that what passes for objectivity is a mere consensus of what a cabal agrees it will allow the public to be informed of.