Nytt

VG fordreier en enkel nyhetsstory om Mark Duggan som ble skutt av britisk politi. I VGs story heter det at det var politiet som ufrivillig kom til å gi inntrykk av at Duggan skjøt først, men i den engelske originalen fremgår det klart og tydelig at det var politiombudet, IPCC, som innrømmer å ha feilinformert.

Er fordommene mot politiet så sterke at de slår inn på leseevnen?

Det britiske politiklageorganet IPCC sier at politiet kan ha villedet journalister til å tro at Mark Duggan skjøt mot politiet.
..

Nå sier granskningsorganet at politiet ubevisst kan ha villedet journalister til å tro at Duggan også skjøt, i en tidlig fase av etterforskningen.

Men sannheten er stikk motsatt.

The police watchdog investigating the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked the first bout of rioting in London on Saturday, has said it may have «inadvertently» misled journalists into believing the Tottenham man had fired at police.

Responding to inquiries from the Guardian, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said in a statement: «it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged».

Det fremgår at det var IPCCs rotete redegjørelse som førte til medierapporter om at det var Duggan som skjøt først. Det var dette som førte til at familie og venner demonstrerte.

Det var således ikke et skyt-først-politi som forsøker å legge skylden på offeret, som det var tale om her, det var et overvåkningsorgan som rotet det til. Men VG og norske medier generelt er så kritiske til politiet at de kun tenker i sjablonger: Politiet er per definisjon skyldige. I en grad at man ikke greier å lese en nyhetssak riktig.

The alleged failure by the IPCC to provide Duggan’s family and the local community with reliable information in the aftermath of his death was part of the reason local people took to the streets to protest last week.

The peaceful demonstration outside Tottenham police station later descended into rioting and looting that, within days, had inspired «copycat» disorder across England.

Duggan’s family consistently said that if he was carrying a loaded weapon, they did not believe he would have fired at police.

The firearms officer who shot Duggan has said that he never claimed he was fired at and is understood to be upset that the family might have been misled into believing this.

It was scepticism surrounding the official account of his death – reinforced by BlackBerry messages drawing attention to the inconsistencies in the account given by the authorities – that led people to protest two days later.

The IPCC’s first statement about Duggan’s death, issued four hours after he was pronounced dead, made no reference to shots fired at police.

However, at least one spokesperson from the watchdog appears to have misinformed journalists, leading to reports the following that day that Duggan was killed by police after «firing first».

The Evening Standard said Duggan had been involved in a «shootout», adding that «spokesman for the [IPCC] said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire».

The Mirror quoted an IPCC spokesman saying: «We do not know the order the shots were fired. We understand the officer was shot first, then the male.»

– Politiet villedet media om drapet på Mark Duggan

Hvordan er det mulig å feillese dette:

Mark Duggan death: IPCC says it inadvertently misled media
Police watchdog says it led media to believe shots were exchanged but Duggan was carrying gun that was never used