Incident in Peoria gets NATIONAL attention - and someone seems to be a bit ticked that it did...plus a new twist shots fired - same neighborhood

This blogger will now weigh in on the top news story in Peoria -- a story that appears to have deserved THREE more columns/stories in the PJ Star today in addition to what amounted to national coverage the past 24 hours...
(at the risk of getting attacked by a multimillion dollar corporation known as the local newspaper just like another respected local and even a well respected national blogger just were - read on)

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x2069925100/Account-of-racist-Peoria-mob-spurs-national-attention

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1305078863/Peoria-councilwoman-neighborhood-activist-at-odds

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1305078863/Peoria-councilwoman-neighborhood-activist-at-odds


Here are the facts as we know them...

1) that some kind of incident did occur - police have confirmed it

2) a large number, 30-50 youths were involved in some common activity that prompted this whole scenario and coverage

3) reports vary as to what happened and what was said

4) one, then several national blogs and sources picked up on the story as well - none of which is very widely read except the Drudge Report..and no telling if many who looked there even read the story -- as currently NOTHING on the front page of Drudge references anything in Peoria, but the story can be found via site search..although it is highly doubtful many are finding it that way.


But I guess here's my gripe -- read the three long columns linked above...plus the initial smaller story Monday...
you'd think the major emphasis in any of the three stories would be to get to the bottom of this, to ascertain the truth, and to comment on the appropriateness or legality or the social impact of what's being alleged.

But, no -- I did a word count on the three articles and there are 2200 words just in Tuesday's 3 stories, and no more than about a hundred actually report on what happened from eyewitness accounts!

The other more than 2000 words cite observers who DID NOT SEE or who DID NOT HEAR anything to report on, or cite the opinions of people who are expressing an obvious predetermined bias against the eyewitness who saw and heard the main crux of this story, or- as in the Luciano column - bemoan the fact that the story was known and being discussed on the internet for a full freaking day before anyone at the Peoria Journal Star seemed to know anything about it or reported anything about it.

Here's proof of what I just said....

The event in question occurred at 10:50PM last Friday night. The police were also informed Friday according to the Journal Star's own account. Emails were sent to Peoria City Council members within just a couple hours, as well as to a local blogger who has run for city council and who has deep city council interests.
By 3AM on Saturday, June 25, the account per Mr. Wilkinson was on the internet.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lHzJ2PFQcMEJ:peoriachronicle.com/+http://peoriachronicle.com/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

The Saturday PJ Star issue made no mention of this even though I know for a fact that the Peoria police calls -- every call requiring a response - are reviewed by someone for the purposes of the PJ Star determining what's newsworthy.
Then Sunday also came and went and still the PJ Star never mentioned a single word of this story -- absolutely NOTHING.
By Sunday morning -- June 26 - at about 11AM, Matt Drudge had a simple link to the same story on his website..
http://twitter.com/#!/Drudge_Report/status/85049390716293120

Within hours after that, as would be expected and should come as absolutely NO surprise to anyone in the known universe... hundreds of other web sites and bloggers were also discussing the event that happened Friday evening.
Here's just one example....
http://emergepeoria.blogspot.com/2011/06/black-bloggers-have-been-discussing.html


I don't think you can put it any more succinctly than this...
the Journal Star and their entire staff were caught horribly embarrassed. They were beaten to this story by DAYS. Hundreds of people were reporting it, discussing it, and debating it long before the PJS folks had all the time in the world to report on it.

So just why did the PJS totally ignore a story that even a blind, deaf, and dumb Peorian would have known was MAJOR news and was going to get reported sooner or later?
I won't speculate but I have my opinions....
But then when they were completely embarrassed into having to report something -- they took a clear and intentional path of reporting from their very outset that there's a reason they "didn't touch this story initially"....and it's because they all thought it was false, and even if true it shouldn't be reported.

Just read the actual statements...

Their very first word on this subject in today's main story is the title of that column that calls the whole report into doubt.
Their initial peep on this topic starts with a crack that it is overblown and cannot be believed -- even before they report on what "it" is that is overblown and cannot be believed...

"Some claim reports of racist Peoria mob are exaggerated
Account of group walking through West Bluff captures national attention..
Allegations of racist threats and mob-style intimidation in a West Bluff neighborhood Friday captured national attention over the weekend, but some say the claims were exaggerated.

A group of 50 or so young people was walking down Thrush Avenue toward Sheridan Road about 10:50 p.m. Friday, concerning some residents...."

Then of course most all of the rest of this story, which did NOT appear in the publication until Tuesday morning (THREE and A HALF DAYS after the event occurred) then the followup two stories about Van Auken and by Luciano go into more, and more, and more detail about how irresponsibly overblown, exaggerated, and false all of this must be!


I contend there are numerous comments in these three companion columns on the Friday night mob incident that are a little wild and irresponsible...and seem to demonstrate to me that the PJS has already taken sides in this and is trying to establish what people SHOULD believe...

-first - by quoting someone who says they did not hear the racist comments -- the newspaper seems to take a strong tone that this is PROOF that the guy who says he DID hear the comments must be wrong or lying.
I don't know if "not hearing" something can ever be used as proof that a guy hearing something is lying.

-second -- there are NUMEROUS classic "ad hominem" attacks against the guy who says he heard the complaints -- and amazingly -- also the blogger - the guy
who did just what the PJS does on a daily basis - just reported what was said --
...obviously in an effort to use the newspaper to try to convince the readers of a certain viewpoint.

There are comments like this..

"Wilkinson gets carried away with his statements.."
...of course no examples or references given and nothing to back up that statement is offered...

council members are "very gullible" if they believe Wilkinson's claims..
...why?? can't Council members think for themselves and make up their own minds...
Van Auken is free to make up her mind and believe what she wants but she seems oddly demanding that all the rest also believe as she does and the PJS supports her in this.

"Van Auken was outraged by Wilkinson's allegations"...but she has NO 1st hand observation or evidence to know if they are false and she displays NO similar outrage towards the mob behavior people witnessed.
Maybe she should at least make an effort to see if what was reported to have happened did indeed happen.

Even the police say that it did -- they confirmed beyond doubt that there was a large mob - perhaps 50 or more youth - roaming the streets late that Friday night.

PLUS the police themselves report that those comments "may have been said".
Why would the police make such a statement?? The POLICE must have reason to believe those racist comments MAY HAVE BEEN SAID since that was in their report.
The police certainly didn't take the Van Auken and PJS approach - and simply blurt out "nope it didn't happen and anyone who says it did is lying".

Then this slam against the guy who simply reported what happened and what was said in his blog...
"The guy who wrote that blog should be punished. Take his computer away."
....what?? Why would anyone say this and why would the PJS include it in their coverage?
Does the PJ Star believe in taking people's computers away and prohibiting them from freely saying what they want - the very same right the PJ Star people claim for themselves when they want to ruin the lives of others with their often irresponsible and inaccurate reporting?

And then, this defense of the situation by Phil Luciano
"Further, there were just two anti-white threats"
...so that's less than the necessary threshold for PL to give a dang?? And his final summary that it simply can't be true whether in a blog or coming from 1st hand eyewitness testimony unless it is confirmed to be true by a newspaper.....because they are the only ones that are responsible..
There are plenty of examples to prove this statement wrong...just check back a few days when I gave a few... LINK

And if this kind of stuff does become a big story -- then just who is it that makes or breaks a story? Who is it that makes the Caylee Anthony story a national issue for three years running, and who makes a slip of the tongue by Michelle Bachman into a major gaffe, and who makes stories as insignificant as the Terminator having an affair with his housekeeper the biggest story of the decade? It is the media -- it is you guys -- look in the mirror.

In the end -- as is the case for almost everything we see or hear -- people will believe what they want.

When I read that there are those who truly believe the US government introduced AIDS intentionally to hurt a certain segment of the population or that we bombed our own World Trade Center buildings or intentionally destroyed the levees in New Orleans to destroy their 9th ward and blame it on Katrina...

and -- that EACH of those stories has been covered and reported by media organizations that claim to be legitimate, fair, and balanced....then I kinda wonder why the PJS is now taking a holier than thou & smarter than thou approach to this story -- never bothering to actually report what happened, but pretend it never happened at all...then report the whole thing only as hysteria and inaccuracy -- and try to ridicule anyone who believes otherwise.
Next time - get a reporter out there on the beat -- and if it happens Friday evening - then get the facts and report on it Saturday morning...don't wait 'til Tuesday, then with egg on your face, blow into a counterfeit rage to hide the fact that you got beat by a light year in the reporting of this story...
then try to put the story to rest by quoting people known from the start to be hostile to the very people in that neighborhood and the man making the report.

You blame the bloggers and Mr. Wilkinson as having some sort of agenda and not being a credible source. So what -- readers are smarter than you give them credit for. Just report what happened, and what WAS said -- not what people failed to hear...and let the reader decide what he wants to think instead of spending the ink of three long, mantra filled columns throwing mud on anyone who says something happened or chooses to believe the people who says it did.
If you had done your job in the first place, this was a story fully capable of giving the local newspaper a chance at a Pulitzer-worthy set of articles and coverage. Instead the whole PJS staff comes over as pouting about not getting the story way earlier and about the fact that someone says it happened when the PJS folks would like to believe it never did.
Go figure.....are they that threatened by people on the street who want to give their eyewitness and ear-witness accounts and by bloggers exhibiting their Constitutional right to free speech, however "unvetted" it may be in Phil Luciano's opinion?
(btw - my spell-checker says unvetted is not even a word ;))

But they never go back to this statement that was inserted way at the bottom of Monday's little blurb on the topic...
"..police have increased patrols in the area, and Ardis, who is out of town, expects more reports on the incident to be available when he returns Wednesday.
Kenny Rogers, who has lived on Sheridan for 10 years, called police Friday after he saw the group "hollering" and stopping traffic on the street. He did not hear anyone yell that they wanted to kill white people.
Rogers says the crowd was running wildly around yards and porches. It was the largest Rogers, 38, had ever seen in the neighborhood.
"They were doing a show of force," he said, "to show everybody, 'Hey, this is their hood.'"

Isn't this pretty good confirmation that Wilkinson's version of the incident is far more accurate than the "it didn't really happen" approach that Van Auken & Luciano took?




BTW -- in a separate report, the PJS also noted that police responded to N. North Street and Nebraska - about 24 hours after this event - because of a report of shots being fired.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x706705828/Multiple-reports-of-shots-fired-Sunday-and-Monday

Like it or not -- this IS the same neighborhood...only a couple hundred yards or so from the spot of the mob report Friday night...
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x2069925100/Account-of-racist-Peoria-mob-spurs-national-attention

You decide -- are things really safe in this neighborhood?