In the Comey story, in which a seemingly liberal FBI director discusses crime, police, race, and history and get pilloried by the left, the New York Times takes the cake. In some Bizarro World I'm not part of, The Grey Lady deemed Comey's comments "incendiary" and playing "into the right-wing view that holding the police to constitutional standards endangers the public. ... His formulation implies that for the police to do their jobs, they need to have free rein to be abusive."
No, he doesn't say that or even imply it. Where do they get this from?! It seems like they first wrote an unfair headline about Comey, and then exploded in outrage over their own bad reporting. Classy.
From a liberal perspective, Comey shows an amazing understanding of the problem. Given what he is actually saying, Comey will have a much greater problem with maintaining credibility with the conservative right, ie: most cops.
Comey said so much. I know from personal experience that the Times might call someone, say, a "denier of reality" not because of anything actually said but because of a 2nd-hand out-of-context misquote they were pointed to in a conservative rag. So perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that because Comey said one thing -- something any cop will tell you -- because Comey veered ever so slightly from the Party Line by suggesting the possibility that viral videos might be [gasp] having some impact on policing, the Times concludes that Comey, "hasn’t begun to grasp the nature of the problem." Did they even listen to what he said? I kind of doubt it.