MARK HALPERIN: Liberal media didn't report on Minneapolis - it engineered the verdict

In the wake of the tragic Minnesota shooting, we are suffering through yet another high-profile moment of flagrant liberal media bias - a slant so pervasive that the offenders appear both oblivious to the bias and indignant when anyone points it out. And this time, the missteps come when America is already fractured, anxious and primed to see every story through a partisan prism. One would think, given the national mood, that major news organizations might show some restraint before tossing gasoline on a cultural fire. Instead, too many are refilling their canisters.

The tragedy in Minneapolis - an ICE officer's fatal shooting of a woman during a chaotic, escalating confrontation - has already polarized red and blue America faster than social media can refresh. 

Facts are still emerging. Multiple videos from various angles are still being analyzed. Investigators are still conducting interviews. Yet, the progressive press has made clear it cannot be bothered to wait. It is marching ahead with a predetermined narrative crafted more for political warfare than public understanding.

Many major newsrooms, which claim to be publishing careful, definitive deconstructions of the publicly available video, are excluding, not even acknowledging, videos that cut in favor of the shooter. Outlets that insist they are providing "context," "fact-checking" and "accountability journalism" have deliberately airbrushed away anything that complicates their preferred storyline. The public is being handed a curated reel - not to inform but to persuade.

And the backlash has already begun.

RENEE GOOD'S WIFE CLAIMED MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING WAS 'MY FAULT' IN VIDEO AMID ANTI-ICE FURY

At Thursday's White House press briefing, Vice President JD Vance delivered a stern and warranted rebuke of the press corps. His criticism was not ideological-it was factual.

Referring to CNN's framing of the story, Vance said: "The CNN headline about what happened in Minneapolis… I'm just going to read it: 'Outrage after ICE officer kills US citizen in Minneapolis.' Well, that's one way to put it. And that is the way that many people in the corporate media have put this attack over the last 24 hours."

NOEM ALLEGES WOMAN KILLED IN ICE SHOOTING 'STALKING AND IMPEDING' AGENTS ALL DAY

Then he went further, calling out the broader press for their selective omissions: "The way that the media, by and large, has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace, and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day."

Indeed, this kind of media bias is a problem for all Americans, red, blue, and purple alike, damaging the spirit of the country and heightening the perils in what should be an open town square. Consider a few of the glaring examples already on display:

MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR DEMANDS STATE BE INCLUDED IN ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING PROBE, SLAMS PAM BONDI'S DOJ

• Selective editing and selection of footage. Many outlets have aired a slowed-down, zoomed-in sequence of the moment the officer deployed his weapon - but conveniently omitted earlier footage suggesting the woman was using her vehicle to block traffic and later video appearing to show the car making contact with the ICE officer. The audience was handed a conclusion without the context required to reach one.

• Loaded characterizations masquerading as straight reporting. Articles have described the officer not as "the officer" or even "the shooter," but as "the ICE agent whose bullet ended an unarmed woman's life." That is not neutral language. Meanwhile, key details about Renee Good, the woman who was killed, have been disregarded, including the question of whether she disobeyed law enforcement's request that she exit her vehicle. When Hillary Clinton deems Good's death to have been a "murder," the liberal press does not push back. Compare that to the denunciations of Trump administration officials who have put forward the opposite conclusion.

• Cherry-picked expert commentary. Several newsrooms featured use-of-force experts but only those who firmly condemned the officer's actions. Experts who said the video was inconclusive, or who cautioned that officers often perceive vehicular threats differently from civilians, are not quoted.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEFEND ICE AGENT IN FATAL SHOOTING, SAY USE OF FORCE WAS JUSTIFIED

• Social-media amplification that outpaces the facts. Initial headlines framed the incident as an "execution-style killing," only to be softened hours later when additional video surfaced. But by then, the narrative had already solidified.

These decisions are not trivial mistakes. They cut directly to credibility - the only real currency journalism still possesses.

America needs patience, clarity and humility from the media at a volatile moment like this. But instead, we are getting the familiar cycle: rush to judgment, moral certainty, and absolute refusal to recognize complexity or admit initial inaccuracies. Many in the press seem to believe that by acknowledging uncertainty or ambiguity, or even waiting for factual clarity, they are "taking the other side." Balanced reporting is treated not as a professional obligation but as a political betrayal.

JEFFRIES CALLS NOEM 'STONE-COLD LIAR' OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING RESPONSE, DEMANDS INVESTIGATIONS

That is not journalism. It is messaging.

None of this is to say the officer is automatically justified or that the woman's death isn't an awful tragedy. Even if the shooting is ultimately deemed legal or consistent with training, a young woman is gone, and a community is grieving. But tragedies require sobriety, not political opportunism. They demand a commitment to facts, not a sprint to partisan talking points.

Incidents of this nature are often complicated on all sides, and tragic and life-changing for everyone involved. Simplifying the narrative and ignoring conflicting elements doesn't make them disappear; it just ensures that the public learns about them through influencers and nontraditional media, not legacy journalists.

Vice President Vance's point is simple: You cannot rebuild trust while feeding the public a curated version of events.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

If our country wants less division - on this story and in general - the national press must stop pouring accelerant on already smoldering civic tension. Start with the basics: don't call something "murder" prematurely, without hard evidence. Don't erase the facts that complicate your narrative. Don't bury videos you know the other half of the country has already seen circulating online.

Accuracy is not partisan. Fairness is not surrender.

The incident in Minnesota is real life. A woman is dead. A community is torn. Laws and how to enforce them remain part of the structure of this country. 

Lack of strong, solid, fair reporting in the dominant media will only lead to more chaos, misery and tragedy for American citizens.

If the press wants to regain the trust it continues to squander, now would be a very good time to start.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MARK HALPERIN