Originally Posted by
Legion
Not only is the data spotty, ignoring violent acts and their repercussions, but the use of it as propaganda is both hypocritical and, in some cases, rather nefarious.
ACLED strongly implies the violence might have been justified. They simply claim the violence is a result of "a multitude of concurrent, overlapping risks—from police abuse and racial injustice, to pandemic-related unrest and beyond—all exacerbated by increasing polarization."
ACLED claims, "police killings continue unabated," as they call out the "heavy-handed approach" by "militarized" law enforcement.
The pro-demonstration, anti-law enforcement analysis itself should raise serious red flags. It reads like it was co-authored by a CNN anchor and a BLM activist, blaming cops and "right-wing militias" for much of the violence while making the case that the riots "shouldn't garner much media attention".
This bias shouldn't come as a shock. In June, The Washington Post reports ACLED "expressed solidarity" with the very same social justice demonstrations they are now "studying"
https://www.newsweek.com/blms-mostly-peaceful-93-percent-study-sparks-renewed-propaganda-opinion-1529969.
Bookmarks