Channel 7 Strikes Again

Once again, the media alters a story without noting that they "corrected" it, because that would mean that the agenda was exposed (again) and they'd have to explain how their multiple layers of "fact checking" failed once again in the face of a few phone calls.

• Version #1 - But on Tuesday, a judge agreed to lift Green's curfew after his lawyer submitted letters from several supporters including Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Father Michael Pfleger.
  
  
• Version #2 - But on Tuesday, a judge agreed to lift Green's curfew after his lawyer submitted letters from several supporters, including Father Michael Pfleger.

Something is missing in that second version.

The FOP provides this bit of information:

• What we have learned thus far is that the media might have reported a crucial aspect of this story incorrectly. When we pushed City Hall for a copy of the alleged letter, we received a letter dated June 10, 2015 which we were told was mailed out to numerous volunteers who worked on the city-sponsored, 'Put the Guns Down' anti-violence campaign. We were also informed that the original letter was in no way intended to be used as support of any kind concerning this person's recent arrest; nor to help him to be removed from electronic monitoring or to assist him to once again use social media. If we are to believe this explanation, it could be construed that the Court was misled.

So a lawyer misrepresented a letter from thirteen months ago to alter the bail restrictions on someone who attempted to disarm an officer, spit on another officer, threatened the physical safety of a number of officers and told another he would "have his badge." That would appear to be an invitation to sanctions and/or disbarment.

We also don't see Rahm's lawyers (Corp Counsel) going to Court to correct the misrepresentation so that the judge had a complete picture of what was going on.

And finally, Channel 7 made the changes to their article without any notice of what had actually occurred. This is journalistic malpractice at its most blatant. Channel 7 has been rightly described as "thieves" by us on more than once occasion. Now they can rightfully wear the jacket of "hacks," "agenda driven" and "lying by omission motherfuckers."

(Aside to the unpublished asshat who said Channel 7 got their lead from us and we ought to check our sources, that isn't our job - that is the media's job. They're supposed to be at Court following cases, not stealing from blogs. We're cops (unlike you) who blog part time. They're "professionals" or so we've been told)

Someone ought to be fired over this, but they won't be. They won't even be identified by the management pulling the strings. The mask is slipping more and more.