Thread by @FordFischer

THREAD: Mainstream media outlets like NBC consistently use the passive voice and euphemism to prevent themselves from clearly stating when elements of government, such as police, kill people.

This isn't objectivity.

Let's take a look at what they just wrote about #AnthonyBrown

"The Black man who died during an attempted arrest"

He "died," or was he "killed"?

And who was arresting him?

"...was killed by a bullet in the back of his head."

As gun owners know, guns/bullets don't kill people. People do.

Cops killed him by shooting him in back of head.

"...who found that Brown was shot four times in the right arm and once squarely in the back of his head."

'Brown was shot'

"That head shot was fired from "intermediate" range"

'head shot was fired'

The first time NBC says police shot at him is quoting the family lawyer.

Talking to experts, NBC says "A fatal shot to the back of Brown's head will raise difficult questions."

Finally, toward the end, NBC words the deputy as doing the shooting, but they begin the sentence with "if."

"If Brown had his back to the deputy who fired the deadly shot..."

Some will say I'm being nit-picky or ridiculous about grammar, but read the story closely.

Consider whether a civilian shooting a government agent would be afforded the same passive voice.

Would bullets have killed them, or would the shooter have?

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/a…

Yesterday my friends & I shot some paper targets.

"Fischer and friends shot paper targets Monday afternoon."

not:

"Paper targets were shot Monday afternoon."

"The paper targets were hit by 200 bullets."

"Paper targets were injured in a Fischer and friends-related shooting."