Somehow a deliberate murder becomes just a hit and run, even after the clowns have the video:
Even more disturbingly, the paper revealed that its original "reporter" (a "hero", according to the paper) had known about the cellphone footage for over a fortnight:
In fact, a source had contacted the Review-Journal about the existence of the video more than two weeks ago, and a reporter had instructed the caller on how to forward the video to Metropolitan Police Department detectives investigating the case.
Why, they even did another bland, insipid minimal item on the charge getting upgraded to murder.
Er, okay. But in that case - if you knew about the video "more than two weeks ago" - why didn't you do a piece on that? Because, in any real journalistic culture, that's the story - not sentimentalist sob-sister crapola about, aw, he was a nice guy with a "love of coffee" who unfortunately came a cropper on his bicycle.
The video is the story, but the local paper wouldn't cover it. As its comrades elsewhere in the US media still haven't covered it. Why is that? Oh, well: as usual with an American news event, it took Viscount Rothermere's Daily Mail to write it up in any detail.
So, either incompetence, an attitude of "This story won't advance the Preferred Narrative", or both?