My first reaction to the video of Walter Scott being shot by police officer Michael Slager was, like everybody else’s, “what a horrifying example of law enforcement malpractice.”

But soon the contrarian conservatarian skeptic in me started wondering how long it would take for the left lackey media to start spinning and twisting this incident and to begin pushing one of their favorite “social justice” theorems: police+minority=evil? As it turned out, it didn’t take long at all.

Within two days after the video is said to have been revealed to Scott’s family, U. S. News was trumpeting, “Lessons From North Charleston: Video Changes Everything.” But there’s more in the subtitle of this article: “A South Carolina shooting reminiscent of that in Ferguson unfolds differently once the officer's account is contradicted.” Reminiscent, huh?  Is somebody suggesting that other white-policeman-kills-black-citizen incidents where there is no video should now ipso facto be regarded as crimes that were covered up with lies, just as all the leftist agitators claim? Yes, I’m convinced that’s exactly how the left has intended to spin this incident from the beginning, but some unwitting words spoken by a conservative talk show host will nail that…keep reading.

This video-changes-everything theme crystalized in my mind as I was watching the April-12 edition of "Meet the Press".

When the subject of the Scott shooting and video came up, here’s what moderator Chuck Todd had to say (emphasis mine):

The videotaped shooting of a South Carolina man by a police officer has intensified the calls for police officers to wear body cameras at all times. This morning, we want to take a look at the significance of recording encounters with the police in a way you haven't seen before.

This week, the folks over at the Huffington Post wrote a print version of how the North Charleston shooting would've been covered, had there been no tape of the incident. So we thought we'd try to do a television version of what they did. How TV would've been stuck covering the story with no video to contradict the claims of the police department.

Here it is. And remember, what you're about to see did not air anywhere. It is simply a version of how television would've had to cover the story if there were no video and it had to rely entirely on information from the North Charleston Police Department. Every quote in here is real, released in the initial aftermath of the incident.

Whereupon this fictional narrative is presented to the viewer.

Very cunning, Chuck, but I can disambiguate your lies (emphasized above) with one word: autopsy.  An autopsy was in fact performed on Scott’s remains, and the results were publicly announced on April 8, four days after the shooting:

The Charleston County Coroner's Office announced Walter Scott died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the back, and ruled his death a homicide. 

Coroner Rae Wooten said an autopsy was performed Sunday on the 50-year-old, one day after police say Scott was shot while running from a North Charleston police officer.

So, what do you say to that, Chuck?  “…TV would've been stuck covering the story with no video.” 

Really?

Okay, Flyoverpen, you say, why are you making such a big deal about this? Here’s why: In all the past white-cop-shoots-black-citizen incidents, including Ferguson, that the left would like you to think have now been cast into doubt because they weren’t captured on video like the Scott shooting was, there were autopsy results available, as there always are nowadays, and such information has undoubtedly played a significant role in police officer acquittals.

Chuck Todd’s lies were very cunning, so much so that they knocked esteemed talk show host Hugh Hewitt right off his fence; poor Hugh, sadly he played right into the left’s propaganda line. Here’s how he responded to the fictional narrative:

…I must say, that was a very provocative and well-done piece. And it does present to you why this video makes so much sense. On the front page of the Washington Post today, they have gone back ten years. There are 54 prosecutions with police who have shot people, only 11 convictions. Some are still pending.

Does all this mean we should abandon the idea of body cameras for police as unnecessary? No, there are some compelling arguments for and against this new technology. What it does mean is that honest citizens must be constantly trolling for leftist propaganda, often cleverly masquerading, in today’s media weeds.

Paul Jacobson blogs under the nom de plume Flyoverpen. He resides in Deepmidwest, FO.