*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 6:55am PDT - promote requested by original submitter MrFisk.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 6:56am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Personally, I thought this was one of the better seasons of "The Wire."

A better description might be "Lawrence O’Donnell criticizes The New York Times for claiming there are witnesses that back up police stories without ever producing a whit of evidence to back it up."
I'm guessing these mysterious 'witnesses' are actually only officer Willson's account, but if they admit that it's too obvious how misrepresented, self serving, and untrustworthy these 'corroborating witness statements' are.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 6:55am PDT - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

I don't know how much of this is my fault, but I've never heard any of those witness accounts. Wow.

.........................

The NYTimes is toilet paper

Witnesses are crap. Don't believe a word they say.

There's video of the shooting. It doesn't show what happened immediately before or after, but it shows what happened in the shooting.

*length=11:33

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 11:33 - length declared by Zawash.

The NYT reporter implies pretty clearly that other witnesses say that the cop did not grab Brown by the throat. If you actually take the time to read the article (anyone...did anyone actually read it?) the point of the piece was not to show a handwringing bias, it was to show that the trial is going to be clouded with conflicting stories, and that we need to step back from any kneejerk reaction that we may feel from just one piece of testimony; a concept that is lost to O'Donnell who only interviewed people who had similar stories. He could have gotten the other witnesses' testimony, but no, he just makes assumptions that align himself with his demographic. It shouldn't be surprising that O'Donnell doesn't understand the nuances of print, because he's never actually been journalist. It was eye-rolling to see him sit up there in the beginning of the piece and claim to be an authority on the inner workings of print journalism when he's never actually stepped foot in a press room. The whole spectacle was eye rolling to anyone who would be at all interested in looking for some unbiased information.