No surprise, Ferguson Grand Jury extended

CLAYTON • The grand jury considering whether Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson should be criminally charged in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown now has until Jan. 7 to decide…


A St. Louis County grand jury usually sits for four months, a period that for the current panel expired last week. State law provides for a term of up to six months, which moves the date to November. On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington issued an order adding 60 days more.

“She extended it to the full amount allowed by law,” Court Administrator Paul Fox said Monday. But he added that the grand jury will keep meeting until Jan. 7 only if it needs to.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

I’m not surprised at all.  Given the nature of the shooting, I would prefer that a thorough, honest, and complete investigation compliment a likewise presentation to the Grand Jury.  I think this would go a ways towards easing some of the mistrust that some in the Black community have with law enforcement and the media as well.

While I hold out hope for a fair investigation and Grand Jury presentation, the cynic in me doesn’t think such a thing exists.  There have been far too many “eyewitness” leaks and reports that appear to have been missed or ignored by the police investigating the shooting.  You also have the hearsay “eyewitness” testimony of the officer’s friends who are relaying what they say is the officer’s story.  Add the multiple false flag reports on Brown including the fake criminal record, the juvenile murder charge, the shattered orbital bone, and the fake officer photo, and I don’t see how a fair and impartial trial can happen anywhere.

I fault the media for this as some have gone out of their way to display the worst behaviors in Ferguson while completely ignoring the stories of those who are trying to bring the community back together.  That opinion is shared by the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as well as he explained in an interview with Media Matters.

“I think the national media has done a good job of capturing the story,” Bailon said. But he later said of Fox News: “I do think sometimes … it looks like the whole community was in flames, and it was really a few block area. Significant, but it wasn’t like St. Louis was on fire or out of control and there was mass chaos everywhere … it wasn’t like an all-consuming entire metropolitan area was hit by that, yet it commanded a huge presence of what was there.”

He added, “I think Fox took a different angle, their view was more of the view of the chaos, was really focusing on the looting and less of what was going on in the community pre-dating the looting. The looting was very dramatic…but there was the deeper story there. Some stayed on in town longer, I think there was a different viewpoint on them and less on the undercurrent. [Fox] didn’t look at it as deeply and as long as others, CNN did make an investment, MSNBC was there a lot.”

He also cited a Washington Postreport that Brown had marijuana in his system and another from the New York Post that the officer who shot Brown suffered a fractured eye socket as facts his paper has yet to report because they cannot be verified.

Source: Media Matters For America

Recent polling has also shown that Blacks, along with Hispanics, have a healthy distrust of the media in reporting the events of their communities.  We will find out whether or not this mistrust is unfounded on or before January 7th.

We need a better press

Earlier this week, I saw several conservative posters online complaining about how Obama was trying to force Marines to wear “girlie hats”.  I didn’t really pay it much attention as none of the former Marines I work with had made any mention of an impending uniform hat.

Today, I happen to come across a press release from the Marines stating that there was no uniform change upcoming that was directed by the president.

From the official Marines website:

“Recent headlines in the media have created confusion regarding a Marine Corps uniform item, the male dress cover. Some in the media have implied that the President of the United States directed a change in this dress cover. 

Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos said, “the President in no way, shape or form directed the Marine Corps to change our uniform cover.”

While the Marine Corps Uniform Board is currently looking for a new cover, or cap, for female Marines because the current manufacturer is going out of business, there is no intent to change the current male Marine dress cover.
A survey released by the Marine Corps Uniform Board eliciting input from Marines in regard to uniform items, sought opinions about the “Dan Daly-style” cover. 

Pictures of male Marines wearing this cover were included in the survey material.  This is standard practice while conducting surveys. For instance, when the Marine Corps transitioned to the current MARPAT camouflage design several years ago, surveys included a number of proposed cami-patterns and additional uniform options.  
  
“The surveys often contain photo illustrations that portray what a uniform article might look like when worn by a Marine,” Col. Todd S. Desgrosseilliers, Marine Corps Uniform Board president, said. “This is a very standard practice. While there was never any desire or intent to change the male Marine dress cover, the feedback we have received to maintain this iconic cover has been heard, loud and clear. “
 
Surveys conducted by the Uniform Board serve to inform the commandant, who has the final say on all changes to the Marine Corps uniform.

Seems as though the survey that went out was STANDARD PRACTICE and not some nefarious Liberal, Kenyan, Marxist, Socialist attempt at changing the Marines cover.  Gen. Amos is the one who would have the final say over uniform changes, not the president.  Furthermore, the USMC Uniform Band is looking to change hats and not the entire US Marine Corps.

In case you didn’t already figure out two of the primary purveyors of the story, here’s two screen captures to show how they decided to present this “news”.

First, from the New York Post:

*click to read NY Post story

*click to read NY Post story

And not to be left behind, Fox News jumped on the bandwagon:

*click to read Fox News story

*click to read Fox News story

There were others, such as the Washington Times, who also relayed this story.  None of the outlets I saw have issued a retraction or acknowledgment of their story being wrong.  The stories are still up and available on the internet as I type.

How can we honestly know what’s going on when our press isn’t being honest with us?  I’m picking on the conservative outlets, but the liberal sites also have their agendas they push.  Why can’t we simply have a news outlet that’s devoid of partisan wrangling and simply give us the news?  Don’t try to push an agenda for any political group.  Simply report the news.  I guess that’s simply too friggin’ hard to accomplish nowadays.

I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have considered the corporate shilling press anything remotely being “free press”.  It may come down to where individual bloggers become more of the “free press” as it was intended when this country was founded.  Hopefully, the same protections will be extended to bloggers as it is to the corporate press.  If we end up needing me personally to be the “free press”, then I know we’re all effed up.  Seriously.  😆