jessehimself:

I recorded this last night. The volume was mad low because my daughter was sleeping, so that’s my annoying mistake. But the audio is clear, just turn up your volume or use headphones and listen closely to the astonishingly malicious reporting from CNN International (which takes over American CNN every night for some reason).

They have 3 [Black] eyewitnesses, which they completely disregard by framing a false equivalency with— and I’m not making this up, “an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers”

Whaaaaaat? You’re rebutting 3 eyewitnesses with  an anonymous caller who did NOT even see the events AND is a friend of the shooter? Really?

Where they do that at?

CNN continues, ““an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers says Michael Brown was the aggressor, which CNN has CONFIRMED matches the account officer Wilson gave authorities.”

Oh, you confirmed it did you? Of course it matches, she’s representing the guy who will literally say anything to stay out of jail. She already admitted that she could not possibly know if what she’s saying is true, and CNN broadcasts it around the world. Think about that. They use the word “confirmed” in an attempt to add validity to propoganda, while making it sound like they did some work.  

Then, as if that wasn’t crazy enough, they immediately play the ANONYMOUS person’s call/version of events on TV!! (With captioning to make sure the narrative really burns into your consciousness.) Her version has literally zero merit. They did not play any of the eyewitness accounts and went straight to a play-by-play from someone who WASN’T EVEN THERE??!!

That is a gross violation of journalistic responsibility and public trust.

The question is not “if” but why; why have news networks chosen a side?

(Granted, none of these accounts are given under oath; none are automatically true. But at least ask people who could possibly be of value.)