Must have been a slow editorial day for the bigwigs at the NY Post. But attacking the Times is fun, and we pass it along because keeping an eye on the broken record of all things liberal might be helpful to any new Mexicans who've snuck across our borders and don't know who to turn to:
"...Take the Times' campaign to distort the NYPD's tactics at public protests, particularly during the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Since the moment that event ended (with no major catastrophes, by the way), the paper has been trying relentlessly to claim that cops went too far in controlling the crowds, violating civil liberties and suppressing free speech.
But that's exactly backward.
The truth? Nearly half a million people marched and demonstrated freely - notwithstanding the public vows by troublemakers to incite anarchy. And threats by al Qaeda to do even worse.
Indeed - despite an army of civil-rights lawyers and an onslaught of stories in the Times - just three complaints against police were substantiated.
Three.
If anything, cops were remarkably restrained. But don't expect the Gray Lady to give up the fight.
Last month, for example, a Times headline screamed: "Police Commander Accused of Lying About Arrests During Convention." The story suggested that "hundreds" of people who had gathered near Union Square were arrested based on "false information."
Protesters were hauled away for ignoring an order to disperse - but, the Times piece claims, no order was ever given.
The real story? On alert for promised acts of civil disobedience, cops reacted when hordes massed without a permit and illegally began blocking traffic.
These acts alone justify arrests.
Yes, a police inspector's testimony in a deposition a few weeks ago failed to make clear whether he actually ordered people to move on. But, again, no order was needed to justify the arrests. Yet that didn't stop the Times from crying foul and slurring the cops.
Meanwhile, in December, the paper omitted facts in a story by Jim Dwyer about undercover agents at the protests. Dwyer claimed that cops pretended to arrest one agent so as to incite the crowd, which thought the man a fellow protester.
Indeed, two onlookers did wind up getting arrested - just as the cops had intended, Dwyer suggests. But the Times man failed to note that it was a protester who actually sparked the arrest in the first place - by telling cops that the man was carrying a gun.
Innocent oversight by Dwyer?
Or anti-cop bias?
The preponderance of evidence would suggest the latter.
Consider this: Dwyer has penned story after story accusing cops of overaggressive policing and unjustified, "pro-active" arrests that have supposedly suppressed free speech and civil liberties. And nearly every one of his anti-cop smears has fallen like a brick upon scrutiny.
Need another example?
A year ago, Dwyer claimed that charges in "hundreds" of convention arrests were dismissed "based on videotapes."
But long after Rodney King, everyone knows videotapes are not dispositive.
Yes, many cases were dropped - but the reasons had nothing to do with tapes.
In the wake of the Jayson Blair debacle, the Gray Lady promised to do better.
But its biggest problem isn't sloppy reporting or even plagiarism. It's that the paper just can't seem to break with its ideological grudge against legitimate efforts to maintain order, enforce laws and protect the public.
Even in an Age of Terror.
Taken together, such hostility is beyond irresponsible: It's anti-American.
No comments:
Post a Comment