Monday, April 7, 2008

Concord Monitor Refuses to Acknowledge Shots Were Fired on 6/7/2007

In a recent podcast recording of Margot Sanger-Katz, the lead reporter who has been covering the Brown situation for the Concord Monitor, she talks about the Brown supporters trial and the evidence that has been presented in the case. At 10:30 into the audio blog she described the incident in which Danny was shot at and tasered as: He "bumped into" the Marshal "surveillance teams that were hiding in the woods and caused a big commotion and was arrested." No mention of shots fired, tasering or injuries that were sustained in that incident. Although this is an "off the page" interview, none of the (on the page) articles of the Concord Monitor have acknowledged or presented any of these facts to the public thus far.

In light of the video evidence that has been presented to the Jury and which was later posted on the internet by the Ridley Report. I would hope that the Concord Monitor will be able to live up to its journalistic responsibilities and correctly report on the evidence presented. It has been clear throughout the Monitor's reporting that it has sought to always give the government the benefit of the doubt and when it is later shown that the government had indeed lied to the public, the Monitor continues to extend the benefit of the doubt to the government by accepting, without question, its reasons for lying. I thank God that in our system of justice, all doubt must be rightfully resolved in favor of the accused and I would hope that the Concord Monitor would seek to adjust the disingenuous nature of its reporting caused by consistently seeking to resolve doubt against the accused. Hopefully a future editorial from the Monitor will seek to clarify for the public its position on this matter.

(The comment section of this blog is open for moderated comments, unlike the Concord Monitor which doesn't allow the public to directly comment, moderated or otherwise, on its articles)


  1. True, the Monitor's website is not set up for comments, but we do publish old fashioned comments in the form of letters to the editor. Please don't hesitate to write the paper if you'd like your voice to be heard.

  2. It is the nature of news agencies, such as the Concord Monitor, to be loyal to their news sources. If they offend the law enforcement community, they will stop getting cooperation, leads and inside information from the government/law enforcement types. It is the price they pay in order to stay in business.

    Their primary motivation is to sell papers. Most news reports today simply parrot government officials. Seldom is there a pursuit of truth by the Concord Monitor or any other news sources. Investigative reporting is virtually non-existent.

    We as readers need to be mindful of that when we read their daily drivel.

    Even if Margot were to print the truth, the paper would be reluctant to print it.

  3. What difference does it make whether or not shots were fired on 6/7? If Danny Riley is guilty of the crimes he is charged with, he will be guilty regardless of what happened on 6/7.

  4. Pity.
    It's also too bad that I am having to sue them for slander/liable for one of the most offensive pieces of work I have ever seen spit out of a liberal rag. Unfortunately for them, they slandered the wrong person....and I wont put up with irresponsible reporters. I have Probes International Investigators searching deep into the bowels of those people at this very minute before we file, they are gathering information to make our lawsuit as effective as possible against their irresponsible actions. And to think, all they would have had to do is print a retraction on the front page. Looks like they'll be getting more than they bargained for. I am the type of person who will spare no expense in righting a wrong.
    Daniel J. Tanner
    Tannerite Explosives
    877-744-1406 (toll free)