Source: FAIR
Moments before the murder of Renee Good by federal secret police (X, 1/7/26).

Millions have seen the video, but some reports suggest that you should not believe your eyes that saw ICE agents murder Renee Nicole Good as she attempted to slowly move her car away from them.

What you are instructed to believe, according to Donald Trump (USA Today1/7/26), and those in media who obey him, is that Good was “a professional agitator,” who was “very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.”

You’re to understand that Good was engaged in “an act of domestic terrorism,” according to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (PBS NewsHour1/7/26), and that “an officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him.”

‘Deep divide’

NPR (1/8/26) wants you to know it doesn’t know much.

NPR (1/8/26) underscored the idea that you should wait before decrying a murder, saying reactions to the killing “reflect outrage over Good’s death and a deep divide in how it’s portrayed—as either a tragic abuse of power or an officer acting in self-defense.”

Only after setting up readers up with six paragraphs of (relevant, we’re to understand) details about how officer Jonathan Ross had previously “sustained injuries’ from “an anti-ICE rioter” who was a “Mexican national,” NPR allowed as how Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison “disagrees with Noem’s characterization of Good as a domestic terrorist.”

In the 13th paragraph, we get the mayor of Minneapolis: “Frey said of the self-defense explanation, ‘Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody that is bullshit.’”

Did the NPR reporters see the video themselves? Can they tell us whether or not this is bullshit? How exactly do they define the job of reporting?

‘Before facts could be established’

For the New York Times (1/7/26), the smart response is to say that reality is unknowable.

The New York Times (1/8/26) seeks points for having “pressed” Trump on what he insists is reality—”We Pressed Trump on His Conclusion About the ICE Shooting” read the headline—and for printing that he showed a “reflexive defense of what has become a sometimes violent federal crackdown on immigration.”

Setting aside whether there is a crackdown on “immigration” or on some and not other immigrants, that  supposed journalistic bravery has to battle in Times readers’ minds with the textbook garbage they also put forward with the piece by Kurt Streeter headed “Video of ICE Shooting Becomes a Political Rorschach Test” (1/7/26).

That piece explained that you can’t really know what you saw, or what it means, because “in a polarized country, high-ranking officials were offering definitive, and starkly contrasting, accounts long before the facts could be established.”

The Times sees its role as telling you that whether or not you believe Renee Good deserved to be murdered depends on whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Someone should tell them that millions of Americans are over that old line.

But still, for the New York Times, you are to ignore what you saw, and ponder:

Was the officer struck by the vehicle, as President Trump insists, or did the car pass by or around him? Was he positioned in front of the vehicle or to the side? Did he have a genuine, reasonable fear for his life in that moment, or did he create the very danger he then used lethal force to escape?

That pondering of never-answered questions, you see, is what smart people do. It leads to nothing changing, which is convenient, but you can always say you thought deeply and from all sides.

The Washington Post (1/8/26) employs an advanced journalistic technique called “looking at the video.”

Not like those “political leaders” who “deliver[ed] their verdicts within hours.” Or like all of us evidently unsophisticated people did in reaction to the slow-motion murder of George Floyd. We are all, the Times says, doing wrong by picking a pro– or anti–state-sanctioned murder side, when “facts are not established, but the first words from political leaders are conclusive and set the frame—and with it, the battle lines.”

Even the Trump-pandering Washington Post (1/8/26) was able to perform the basic function of journalism by describing the reality shown in the video. Its headline stated: “Video Shows ICE Agent in Minneapolis Fired at Driver as Vehicle Veered Past Him.”

But the subhead had to say that the video “raises questions about claims by President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem about the fatal shooting in Minneapolis.”

Corporate media are demanding we ignore what we see and only listen to what they say.


This article was originally published by FAIR; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate
Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

THE WIND CRIES FREEDOM

The Wind Cries Freedom, the new book from Z co-founder Michael Albert, is a sweeping oral history of a future American revolution.

Through thirty interconnected chapters, it draws out the strategies, failures, turning points, and hard-won wisdom of a movement that called itself the Revolutionary Participatory Society. These are not the polished memoirs of politicians: they are the unfiltered accounts of people who organized in neighborhoods, hospitals, universities, stadiums, courthouses, and places of worship, and kept a shared vision alive through cynicism and exhaustion.

The result is speculative political fiction that reads like history: messy, human, and quietly hopeful in the way that only real experience and long thought can produce.

Get your copy and peruse more features on the book’s website below.

“Read it, argue with it, but don’t look away. The future it recalls is one we must still fight to deserve.”

Yanis Varoufakis

“The most unusual and intriguing combination of prophecy, manifesto, and movement building manual that I have ever encountered.”

Bill Fletcher Junior

“This work fills a huge gap in our social movement literature.”

Cynthia Peters

You've just read your article on Z this month.

DOES Z'S SURVIVAL MATTER?

You keep coming back for a reason: serious political analysis, movement reporting, and debate beyond the priorities of corporate media. Today, Z is in a precarious financial position. If Z is part of how you understand the world, help keep it going. The readers who give monthly are the reason this work survives between fundraisers.

Z is in a precarious financial position. If it’s part of how you understand the world, help keep it going.

Number of donors711
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Z is in the most precarious financial position in its history.

Z is a place to think beyond the limits of the present.

For decades, Z has brought together political analysis, movement reporting, debate, and visions of a different future from writers and activists around the world. That work is more than journalism. It is movement infrastructure: movements need places to develop ideas, test arguments, learn from experience, and imagine what comes next.

In the first two days of this fundraiser, 19 donors and 8 new monthly sustainers stepped up. Help us reach 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone.

For decades, Z has published the analysis, debate, and visions movements need, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. If that work should continue, Z needs your support now.

Number of donors711
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version