'Fashioning' of Ferguson story?

'Fashioning' of Ferguson story?

I find it fascinating how Associated Press writers Jim Slater and David Lieb fashioned their story - in a literal sense of the word - regarding the non-indictment of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

While reporting, to their readers, Officer Wilson's testimony to the grand jury, at a game-changing moment in his testimony, where Officer Wilson recounts the final moments of Michael Brown's life, the writers suddenly shift away from the officer's testimony quotes, in which Officer Wilson stated what happened next, and, instead, write a less detailed "At some point, Brown turned around to face the officer." Officer Wilson's testimony explained when and how Michael Brown turned around.

Their story continues stating, "Witness accounts were conflicted about whether Brown walked, stumbled or charged back toward Wilson." Why did the writers switch to witness accounts and why did they even care about those accounts? Especially since, earlier, in their own story, they stated that there "were inconsistencies and erroneous accounts from witnesses" according to Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch. Would it be because Officer Wilson's account of how Michael Brown turned around would not have fit the narrative they were hoping to present or an agenda they were trying to push?

I highly suggest readers take advantage of the Daily Herald's online documents regarding the testimony so you can form your own opinion instead of relying on the AP's opinion they want you to believe as "reporting."

Mike Goba

Lombard