re: #195 WhatEVs

He pretty much pointed out that the NYT basically presented everything from the police department’s point of view, ignored or misconstrued what actual named witnesses said (showed the videos of two of them being interviewed and then pointed out how the NYT twisted what they said) and then the Times would say there were “conflicting witness reports.” Also, none of the “witnesses” who supported the cops’ version were named—all their supposed testimony came from police sources.

He pretty much said (paraphrased) that the NYT article was more of a police mouthpiece/pr effort, and that it was terrible crime reporting in almost every sentence.

LOD said it better—I’m sure they’ll post the video—it’s his Rewrite section—watch it if you get a chance.