Last week, there was a story in the news, carried by two publications. I read both stories, and was amazed at how different the perspectives were, at the two outlets. The subject of the stories was a Seattle chocolate shop, and how an employee refused service to a police officer. Both publications got the facts right-the chocolate shop, the police officers (one officer and a trainee), and the refusal of service by an employee.
The first publication in which I read this story contacted another publication about the story, and printed the second publication’s responses in a series of quotes. The second paper describes the offending employee as “a white female with green streaks in her hair”. In my opinion, that description is relevant, since it pegs the employee as young and leftist. The publication calls the chocolate shop seeking comment, and the employee who answers the phone is rude to the caller, even though the caller’s publication appeals to young people. The store employee blows off the journalist, and employs a nasty ad-hominem slur. You can read the first story here. So the first story treats the subject fairly, contacting the second publication for the details. The first publication then offers comment of its own, and cites the demoralization of the Seattle police department, which has led to many officers leaving.
The second publication is a large TV/radio station in Seattle. They describe the incident fairly, getting the facts correct, but choosing an entirely different perspective. The title of the article is “It’s a bit of a shock”. Business accused of refusing service to a Seattle police officer. But this rendering of the story starts from the “emotion” side of things, soliciting comment from the head of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, which is their union. The head of the guild speaks at length about how bad the officers feel, due to the rude treatment they received at the chocolate shop. And the publication goes out of its way to mention that the trainee officer is “an immigrant from France”, which is irrelevant to the story (unless the publication wishes to emphasize discrimination against an immigrant as important).
The Seattle TV station then speaks with a local civil-rights attorney, and introduces the topic thusly:
Whatever it was that prompted that employee to allegedly not serve that officer, it was by no means against the law.
I was amazed at that one sentence, and how much it conveyed about the attitude toward the police in Seattle. “Whatever it was” that prompted the employee’s behavior? Introduce the idea that the behavior is not bad, because it’s not against the law?
The comments by the civil-rights lawyer are very instructive, as to the mindset of the elites in Seattle (who, by the way, are all white leftists).
“There are certain protected classes of people,” said civil rights attorney John Tymczyszyn. “And a police officer is not part of those protected classes.”
Protected classes include race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disabilities, age, and veteran status. In 2014, then-President Obama added gender identity to the list.
“Currently under the law, I don’t think these two police officers have a cause of action,” Tymczyszyn said.
He tells KOMO News that he’s more concerned with the fact that an employee is making these decisions as to who to serve and that someday, they may end up discriminating against someone in a protected class.
“It’s not inconceivable that first responders or public servants could be added to that list,” Tymczyszyn said.
Same story, entirely different perspectives. The Red State story (#1, with the publication Post Millennial) takes the perspective of the police officers encountering rude behavior, which is explained as a product of the “Defund the Police” attitude prominent in Seattle and other white leftist cities. It goes into some detail about the force being thinned out as officers leave for other places where they are appreciated and not denigrated for doing their job.
The KOMO story (#2) goes for the emotional angle, emphasizing how upset the Seattle police officers and their leaders are, painting them as hurt, shocked, and angry. And it can’t help but play the “discrimination” card, noting all the “protected” classes in local and national society. Funny, but the race of the two officers involved is never mentioned. The fact of the trainee being an immigrant does bring in the “immigrant-rights” issue into it, which the Red State article ignored (or did not know about).
We seem to continually be hearing stories of how police officers in Leftist cities are subjected to abuse, both mental and physical, in big cities. Most cities are experiencing high levels of resignations and retirements among their police forces, because of a perceived lack of support by their governments. And the so-called “press” reporting on the incidents appears to be contributing to the problem. It’s very difficult being a law-enforcement officer in urban areas today. As a result, cities burn, get vandalized on a regular basis, and harbor a huge increase in crime. Perhaps the Left is getting what it is asking for in the cities. It’s a shame that the citizens, who might not agree, are the ones who are suffering the most.