"Overall in 2015, black people were killed at twice the rate of white, Hispanic and native Americans. About 25% of the African Americans killed were unarmed, compared with 17% of white people. This disparity has narrowed since the database was first published on 1 June, at which point black people killed were found to be twice as likely to not have a weapon." - The Guardian
These statistics are presented to suggest that there is racism rampant in the police force. This is a narrative of 'systematic racism' that we have been hearing for a long time, and the statistics can be convincing to the casual observer. I am skeptical due to the likelihood that there are many confounding factors that affect these statistics. We don't know, for example, if one race is more likely to attack police officers without a weapon. That said, for the sake of the argument, let us assume they are right. Let us assume that there was a racial bias in 2015, and that The Guardian's statistic was the gold standard for demonstrating racial bias. The Washington Post conveniently has a database of police shootings. Now that it is nearing the end of the year, I think it is an appropriate time to check on the status of racial bias this year, 2016.
At the time this article was written, 444 whites and 228 blacks had been shot by police. Of those, 77 whites, and 44 blacks were unarmed*. That means, in 2016, about 17% of whites killed were unarmed compared to 19% of blacks. Not only is that a massive improvement from 2015, the difference of 2% is likely statistically irrelevant. It seems then, if we accept their statistics, that there was no racial disparity in police shootings in 2016.
The question then is this: Will the MSM report this statistic? Will they report that this was a massive achievement on the part of the police force? Will they report that there is no significant racism in the police force? Of course not. They will sweep it under the rug like they never even used the statistic, and use it again in 2017, if it supports their narrative. We do still have a few days for The Guardian to publish an end of the year review, but I would not hold your breath. It is more likely that they will cherry pick statistics that create headlines that bring in viewers like the article published this month suggesting women are the victims of police brutality, or "institutional misogyny."
Incase you haven't realized it yet, the truth is that the MSM is selling a product, and they want to sell as much as possible. The MSM is creating a racial divide, but I don't think that is their intention. I don't think their liberal bias is the biggest factor. The truth is that they know they will get more viewers, if they claim police officers are shooting blacks because of racism. They know more people will tune in, if they claim there is "institutional misogyny." How long before people start to realize this?
*The Guardian's article included individuals who are marked in the database having a car or a toy weapon as being unarmed, which could be questioned, but I am following the same standard they did for consistency.
Also note that the population difference between whites and blacks should not affect this statistic at all because it is based on the proportion of a race shot being unarmed and not based upon a proportion of the USA population being shot.
At the time this article was written, 444 whites and 228 blacks had been shot by police. Of those, 77 whites, and 44 blacks were unarmed*. That means, in 2016, about 17% of whites killed were unarmed compared to 19% of blacks. Not only is that a massive improvement from 2015, the difference of 2% is likely statistically irrelevant. It seems then, if we accept their statistics, that there was no racial disparity in police shootings in 2016.
The question then is this: Will the MSM report this statistic? Will they report that this was a massive achievement on the part of the police force? Will they report that there is no significant racism in the police force? Of course not. They will sweep it under the rug like they never even used the statistic, and use it again in 2017, if it supports their narrative. We do still have a few days for The Guardian to publish an end of the year review, but I would not hold your breath. It is more likely that they will cherry pick statistics that create headlines that bring in viewers like the article published this month suggesting women are the victims of police brutality, or "institutional misogyny."
Incase you haven't realized it yet, the truth is that the MSM is selling a product, and they want to sell as much as possible. The MSM is creating a racial divide, but I don't think that is their intention. I don't think their liberal bias is the biggest factor. The truth is that they know they will get more viewers, if they claim police officers are shooting blacks because of racism. They know more people will tune in, if they claim there is "institutional misogyny." How long before people start to realize this?
*The Guardian's article included individuals who are marked in the database having a car or a toy weapon as being unarmed, which could be questioned, but I am following the same standard they did for consistency.
Also note that the population difference between whites and blacks should not affect this statistic at all because it is based on the proportion of a race shot being unarmed and not based upon a proportion of the USA population being shot.
