Day: July 25, 2020

by William Skink

Last month a man with a gun restrained a protestor in a Missoula alley. Now, over a month later, the City Attorney’s office is filing misdemeanor charges against him for “unlawful restraint”.

What I find interesting about this case is the way the Missoulian has reported what happened compared to how the Missoula Current has reported it.

First, the Missoulian plays the race card in the headline of its article, titled White man charged for unlawfully restraining black teen at BLM rally.

In the Missoulian article, a press release from BLM organizers sent out Wednesday decried the lack of charges. From the link:

The press release stated: “At the courthouse on June 5, 2020 one of our black community members was cornered in an alley by white militia. He was threatened, accused, and afraid for his life. When he tried to get back to safety, he was attacked and detained by MPD. He feared for his life. He has told his story to our city, and has been met with deflection and lack of concern.

“The local city government hasn’t met our calls for accountability and action from the last rally. They are dodging responsibility for the attack on a black member of our community at the courthouse and other attacks and injustices on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color).”

This article seems to make it pretty clear that the white man with a gun was part of the WHITE MILITIA and the black teen was a known protestor with BLM. But is it that cut and dry?

The Missoula Current article paints a very different picture of what happened, and the difference in reporting starts with the MC article NOT immediately playing the race card with its title: Armed man at BLM rally charged with unlawful restraint, acting as security without a license.

Here is how the MC article depicts what went down (emphasis added):

Kanyon Stevens, an event organizer, told police that Belden had stopped and confronted the victim in the alley. Police observed multiple people detaining the victim.

“Multiple Missoula police officers were familiar with (Belden), as he was an armed male who had shown up at the protest daily and assumed a role as security,” the charging documents state. “(Belden) told police that he had been acting as personal security for some of the Black Lives Matter event organizers.”

Stevens and a fellow event organizer confirmed Belden’s claim.

These are two very different depictions of what transpired on June 5th in downtown Missoula.

The Missoulian article relates a more simplistic narrative that highlights the race of the alleged aggressor and the race of the alleged victim: scary white man with gun terrorizes innocent black teenager.

The Missoula Current article relates a more complicated narrative that depicts the white man with a gun as being known by some BLM organizers and even supported in his attempt to identify “outsiders” who may be trying to come into our community to cause trouble.

I would like to think the difference in reporting is because the Missoulian is corporate and therefore more willing to push a simplistic narrative that plays on the biases and fears of its audience, and that the Missoula Current, as a little start-up, is more willing to tell a nuanced narrative, but I suspect the actual reason Kidston’s Current reported this story the way it did is because Kidston was harassed by BLM protestors just a few days previous to this incident.

In Kidston’s “Reporters Notebook” he begins by calling protestors hypocrites in his headline, which reads Missoula protesters harassing local media serve as hypocrites. From the link:

While protesters gathered peacefully Wednesday morning in downtown Missoula, a small group of individuals worked to interfere with the media, urging others to avoid interviews.

The Missoula Current had several interviews interrupted when members of a self-appointed “press control” demanded to know what outlet the reporter – that being me – represented.

Despite being informed of where I worked and what I did – and the fact that I’ve been doing my job for 25 years and for six different papers – they urged protesters not to talk, suggesting I was disguised as a right-wing agitator.

While I don’t have any hair and I shave my head by choice, I’ve never been accused of being a member of the militia. The very stereotypes most demonstrators came to overcome persisted among some members of this small but persistent group.

I’m sorry, but I have to laugh. Poor Martin Kidston was just trying to do what the Missoulian was doing, fitting this local iteration of a national protest movement into the pre-approved packaging of benevolent protestors vs evil white militia men, but then Kidston himself becomes a victim of an unfair stereotype, so he throws a little tantrum and, because of the “harassment” he experiences, apparently decides to relate a more nuanced version of what the Missoulian spit out for its liberal readership.

The difference in how this incident is being reported is a fascinating window into the media’s power to shape narratives for public consumption. If Martin Kidston hadn’t been offended by the supposed BLM hypocrites, I guarantee you his reporting would have been much closer to how the Missoulian is reporting what happened.

It will be interesting to see if this divergence in media narratives continues, or if they eventually get on the same page to demonize the white man with the gun, despite the fact there was apparently more than just one person involved in unlawfully detaining this young protestor.

by William Skink

A recent back and forth at the Moon blog got me thinking about the will to fight back.

After being told to seek anger management, a defeatist from Australia told me this (edited for length):

The vast majority believes what everyone else believes. Human nature as a herd animal unchanged throughout history. Only a very small percentage say “why” or see the massive holes in MSM propaganda. For them if everyone is saying it, it must be true. The few that do question this shit end up at sites like this and then rarely agree on all aspects.

As for what is occurring in this so called west – virtually nothing can be done internally. Whoever controls the media controls peoples minds. The few that don’t get caught by MSM mind control are no threat to those that control the narrative. A small site like this gets to the position it starts making waves as in large and widespread readership, it will be destroyed.

It is only self incurred collapse of the US or outside intervention that will change what is happening. If the US goes down, the whole western house of cards and illusion will collapse.

We can only watch. We could take a gun and take perhaps one or two politicians with us but that will change nothing. For me my life is finished but my children have now started their families. I watch, try and get an understanding of what is occurring and where we are at so that my children – if / when the shit hits the fan my children have some idea of what is occurring. Tearing your hair out and screaming incoherently changes nothing.

I get that what is happening seems too big and overwhelming to do anything about, but the notion that we are powerless is utter shit and needs to be jettisoned with extreme prejudice.

What Peter AU1 appears to be exhibiting are symptoms of learned helplessness. Here is an explanation of what learned helplessness is:

Learned helplessness occurs when an animal is repeatedly subjected to an aversive stimulus that it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action.

If I accepted the false notion that the act of writing is pointless because mainstream media has an airtight hold on everyone’s minds, then I wouldn’t be covering how public resources are being misused and abused in Missoula.

Today the Missoulian is finally getting around to reporting that the Missoula Redevelopment Agency is considering hiring a communication consultant, something I covered last Sunday in my 1,000th post.

Where is the money going to come from for this expenditure? From the link:

Before voting, board member Nancy Moe wanted to know how much the contract would cost and how it would be funded. Essentially, Buchanan said, she envisions the communications being an administrative expense.

She said money could come our of all six of the city’s Urban Renewal Districts.

Let me summarize: MRA is being criticized for how it uses public money, so the response is to SPEND MORE PUBLIC MONEY on better messaging instead of reflecting on how TIF funds are being thrown around for things like bailing out the art park, and bailing out cost overruns at the library, and building a road so Peter Lambros could flip his mall property, and building a homeless bridge to nowhere, and on, and on, and on.

MRA is considering this expenditure on a communication consultant because THEY ARE LOSING THE NARRATIVE BATTLE over the alleged public benefit of their gentrification schemes.

And do you know WHY they are losing?

Because I have the truth on my side, and all they have are a deceitful Mayor, a co-dependent communication director, and liberal lackeys who traded in their spines and thinking caps in order to play political games with our tax money.

Writing these posts day after day, though, WOULD BE pointless if it wasn’t for one thing: you.

So thank you to all who read these posts, who comment (or don’t), who send me emails and help spread this content on social media platforms. If it wasn’t for you, the impact of these words would be zilch.

Thank you, and stay tuned…