As Twitchy reported, the Charlotte police department teased the imminent release of both body cam and dash cam video footage of the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Those tweets were then deleted, and no footage has been circulated.
Seems like @CMPD has deleted all tweets saying they are releasing Charlotte shooting video today. What's going on? #KeithLamontScott
— Faith M. Karimi (@faithcnn) September 24, 2016
Whatever happens with the videos, though, the New York Times has some explaining to do. In announcing their release, the paper made some startling claims, unless you happen to be a member of Scott’s family and insist he was holding a book. First, the paper tweeted that Scott was unarmed, which it then corrected — almost.
.@nytimes reported #KeithLamontScott was unarmed; police say he was armed with a gun https://t.co/zfy6FuttD8 pic.twitter.com/bErAzIflkR
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) September 24, 2016
Take 2:
.@nytimes correction: pic.twitter.com/qOvSvw40J2
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) September 24, 2016
Charlotte police will release videos in the shooting of Keith Scott. It is unclear if he was armed. https://t.co/pkwV5SxXye [Correction]
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 24, 2016
From “unarmed” to “unclear” — unclear to whom?
This needs another correction. The police chief has said over and over Scott was armed pic.twitter.com/UjNY2tzz2R
— Jon Passantino (@passantino) September 24, 2016
So first the New York Times said Scott was unarmed, and then issued a correction saying it was unclear whether he was armed? The police have been very clear from the beginning that Scott was holding a gun and not a book, as his family claimed.
This is irresponsible journalism. https://t.co/2q3RkA4be4
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) September 24, 2016
@oliverdarcy irresponsible journalism is kinda their thing
— ed (@eleventy17) September 24, 2016
@oliverdarcy @EsotericCD @passantino FYI @ron_fournier this is where the "media bias" mantra comes from. Narrative first facts later
— CTIronman (@CTIronman) September 24, 2016
@oliverdarcy @GPollowitz what he said was: https://t.co/NdWfrgt3oS
— Tracy Jeffords (@TracyJeffords) September 24, 2016
"Based on the evidence, he absolutely was in possession of a handgun.." ~Chief Putney
— Tracy Jeffords (@TracyJeffords) September 24, 2016
Media raising tensions by pushing falsehoods because they fit a preferred narrative. Same thing that happened in Ferguson ("hands up"). https://t.co/kJvlTDpcKB
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 24, 2016
Media narrative in NC went from "police shot unarmed man" to "guy with gun ignoring police wasn't a threat". Activism, not journalism.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 24, 2016
@AG_Conservative This type of dishonest activism by the media makes people more reluctant to take examples of unjust shootings seriously.
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 24, 2016
Is there another correction on the way? In the meantime, groups of already suspicious protesters are gathered in cities around the country and perfectly happy to run with the Times’ first version of events.
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.
