| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Govt-Media Stitch Up: Washington Post Uses Second-hand Oregon Account to Cast Blame on Dead Rancher
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
There exists a famous quote often attributed to 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson, who once said, “The first casualty when war comes is truth.” This could also be said when it comes to the federal government’s version of recent events in Burns, Oregon.
Regarding the Tuesday evening’s events at the Oregon Standoff, where federal agents shot and killed rancher Robert ‘Lavoy’ Finicum, a campaign of disinformation appears to be rapidly underway. The following is a prime exhibit of how the mainstream media can spin a story to favor the government version of events.
The Washington Post’s brash headline reads, “Report: LaVoy Finicum, armed with a handgun, reached for his waistband just before he was shot.”
In the absence of any actual evidence, or even analysis to support this deceptive headline, instead Washington Post writer Mike Miller attempts to weave together what could easily be described as yellow journalism.
(Above screen shot: Washington Post)
Miller begins his piece establishing Finicum’s guilt in his own murder by nature of the fact that Robert ‘Lavoy’ Finicum had been seen previously carrying a gun.
“Everyone knew that LaVoy Finicum kept a Colt .45 on his hip. That common knowledge could help explain how the occupier in Oregon died.”
Miller’s article then hammers home the federal thesis that any injured or dead protesters “brought it on themselves”:
“The occupiers had ample opportunity to leave peacefully,” FBI Special Agent Greg Bretzing said Wednesday morning. “They brought this on themselves.”
In other words, according to the FBI, and with the help of the media, dead rancher Lavoy Finicum is guilty in the court of public opinion.
Marginalizing the Witness
Miller immediate moves to cast doubt on the testimony of 18 yr old Victoria Sharp, who was a passenger in the truck Finicum was driving, crassly describing the young woman as a “self-described witness”.
“Another self-described witness disputes that, saying that authorities opened fire before the getaway chase and that Finicum had his hands up when he was shot.”
Instead, Miller leans heavily on a YouTube video recorded and uploaded by a man named Mark McConnell who was not at the scene when federal agents killed Finicum and who’s own testimony is actually second-hand, or possible third-hand, depending on the accuracy of what he is relaying from other passengers riding with Sharp at the time, Ryan Payne and Shawna Cox.
Clearly, journalist Mike Miller’s (photo, left) nudging language is a open attempt to discredit the young female witness Sharp. Miller makes this blatantly obvious when he subtly inserts that Sharp, “who said she was the 18 year old in the car with Finicum”. What? ‘Who said she was the 18 yr old…’? Here is in context:
“McConnell’s account conflicts with statements made by Victoria Sharp, who said she was the 18-year-old in the car with Finicum.”
One would think that a Washington Post headline journalist would have ample resources to confirm whether or not Sharp was in the truck or not. Was it because Miller could not confirm, or did not want to confirm the information? This is puzzling, considering that a small independent website like 21st century Wire was able to confirm Sharp’s identity and her position in the convoy by not one, but two different sources.
Such a basic breakdown in journalism should cast serious doubt on Mike Miller and the Washington Post’s effort here.
Unlike the mainstream media’s ‘go-to’ man McConnell, Victoria Sharp is an actual eye witness who saw first-hand the fateful event in question, and described it in detail immediately after the event during a phone interview. What’s more amazing is how a newspaper like the Washington Post, presumably with a good reputation for high journalistic standards (one would think so anyway) would grab a recycled, second-hand account which first appeared on the tabloid news website Raw Story.
What The Post is attempting to do here is clear: to try and align a secondhand speculative guess by McConnell with a vague ‘anonymous’ statement leaked from the FBI to CNN.
Sadly for news consumers, it’s not uncommon that networks like CNN will often accept vague anonymous leaks from “sources” in order to construct an official narrative of any event – with absolutely zero accountability from either the government source, or the news network.
It’s almost as if Miller is writing this piece on behalf of the FBI.
At the very least here, the Washington Post is playing a supporting role – acting as an additional PR channel and echo chamber for a claim which neither CNN or the government are required to either confirm or deny. In other words, it’s a free-for-all.
‘Sources’ Say Finicum Was Reaching for His Waistband
Rather than question any of the claims fashioned by CNN and its ‘sources’ journalist Mike Miller does the opposite – he tries to reinforce the government narrative.
CNN International’s report hinges on a “anonymous government source” claiming that Finicum was killed by federal agents because he was “reaching towards his waistband.” Miller writes:
“In the moments before he was shot by authorities Tuesday afternoon, Finicum led a high-speed getaway attempt. He then reached for his waistband, prompting authorities to open fire, according to a CNN report.
The report, which cites anonymous law enforcement officials but has not been confirmed by The Washington Post, is corroborated by a statement from an occupier who said he was traveling with Finicum at the time of the traffic stop.”
The Washington Post then tries to enhance CNN’s phantom report by aligning the government narrative with the secondhand story presented by Mark McConnell, further propping-up the government’s version of events:
This same unnamed “source” cited by CNN has also told the network that the incident was captured on video by the FBI, but that authorities “have not decided whether or not the release the video.”
One indication that this anonymous leak to CNN is likely bogus is the fact that the statement says Finicum “reached for his waistband”, but chose not to say, “reached for his gun” – which offers the government a convenient exit from their previous statement should an unincriminating video ever surface for public viewing. In addition, the fact that the alleged damning video has not already been released is a strong indication that their video footage does not support the government innuendo story which has been leaked out via government-media information channels.
Any public distrust or skepticism of the federal authorities would immediately be dispelled by speed release of all video footage (with dozens of agents and surveillance, there should have been more than one video feed taken) of the event. Whether or not, and how fast this will happen remains to be seen.
What’s abundantly clear after listening to both McConnell and Sharp’s conflicting testimonies, is that McConnell’s statement is quite obviously unreliable and full of self-contradictions, doublespeak and endless caveats, while Sharp’s is clear, concise and direct.
The following is the testimony of Victoria Sharp, recorded in the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Oregon highway 395:
.
Sharp’s firsthand eyewitness account is contrasted by the secondhand story relayed by Mark McConnell here:
.
Washington Post: ‘No Ambush’
Anyone looking at this story can see clearly that protester’s vehicles were traveling to a pre-arranged community event in the nearby small town of John Day – an event which was being spear-headed by neighboring Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. Although earlier reports indicated that Palmer was sympathetic to the Bundy’s protest when he called for the release of the Hammond family whom he believes were wrongfully imprisoned, the fact that Sheriff Palmer was reported as present at the FBI roadblock alongside a large contingent of armed Federal Agents only indicates that not only did Palmer have prior knowledge of an armed federal ambush of the Bundys, but that he clearly ceded his own legal Consitutional authority as the county’s chief law enforcement offical over to the FBI’s special agent in charge Greg Bretzing.
Amazingly, The Post’s writer Mike Miller goes on to all but admit a premeditated ambush of the protester’s vehicles on Highway 395, and yet, will not call it what it was – an ambush:
“According to the CNN report, the FBI and Oregon State Police had been watching occupiers come and go from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns for days before they spotted a rare opportunity to nab the militant movement’s leaders all at once: Finicum, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy and a handful of others climbed into two trucks and drove from the refuge to a meeting in John Day, Ore., two hours north.”
“Authorities chose a cold, deserted stretch of highway to attempt a traffic stop. One vehicle complied with orders and pulled over, but the other — allegedly driven by Finicum — sped off at high speed, according to the report.”
Similarly, right after the event most mainstream media were calling the event a “shoot-out”, even though it was obvious that no shots were fired by vehicle passengers. Granted, such deceptive language by media is nothing new, but it’s still further indication that there was a deliberate attempt to skew the narrative in favor of law enforcement’s official version of events.
See 21WIRE’s detailed report of the federal ambush on Highway 395 in Oregon here.
READ MORE OREGON STANDOFF NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Oregon Files
21st Century Wire is an alternative news agency designed to enlighten, inform and educate readers about world events which are not always covered in the mainstream media.
Source: http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/01/28/govt-media-stitch-up-washington-post-uses-second-hand-oregon-account-to-cast-blame-on-dead-rancher-lavoy-finicum/
There will be no video record to back up the Wapo story, but if there was even one thing done by the ranchers, you’d be watching the video right now.