When it comes to the media, there’s a certain level of self-reflection.

And the level of reflection is a little bit higher than most of us might think.

Here’s what we learned from a recent report from The Wire, a new documentary about the lives of real-life crime victims: 1.

It’s a little harder to blame the victim when the crime took place in your own backyard.

In a story titled “The Real Problem With the Media” by the Wire’s own Andrew Klavan, reporter Mark Bittman digs into a New York Times article published last month about the rise of the “self-defense” narrative: In a new article titled “How the Media’s Self-Defense Narrative Became the New Normal,” The Wire’s Andrew Klavans report on the rise in the use of self defense by police departments reveals how the media and police agencies have become increasingly dependent on the “defense narrative” to sell them weapons, ammunition and other gear.

The narrative, according to the article, relies on the idea that a person who has been victimized by a crime is in some way at fault for it.

This is an argument often used by police to justify their actions, and often to justify the use and sale of lethal force.

The article makes this point, for example, in an article entitled “Police Are Using the Self-Defence Narrative to Lie to Their Officers” by Matthew Schmitz.

“Police have become so dependent on this narrative that they are now willing to lie to themselves, even to their own detriment,” Schmitk writes.

“They have developed the mindset that their actions are in some kind of righteous self-defense and that the only problem with the victim is the police officer who attacked them.”

A lot of this, of course, is just wishful thinking.

But what we have here is an example of how this kind of self righteous thinking has made its way into the media.

The story about the police officers and their justification of the use in self defense of their use of deadly force against an unarmed, mentally ill woman was based on the assumption that she was an inherently dangerous person, and therefore it was justified by their actions.

What is the message to the rest of us when we hear this kind.

The piece doesn’t make the case that the police are necessarily wrong to use lethal force against the mentally ill.

But the narrative that the cops are in a moral obligation to lie about their actions makes it hard to imagine a situation where someone who is mentally ill would not be at risk.

That’s why we have to question the role of the media in this narrative.

2.

It becomes harder to believe the victim in the media when the police do the shooting.

This may be a subtle change, but it’s also a big one.

When police use force in the real world, people tend to question whether they did anything wrong, whether they should have used force, and whether the police were justified in using force.

This kind of questioning about the officers actions can lead to a lot of anger.

“When police shoot people in the street, people often get angry,” the Wire reports.

“And when police use deadly force in real life, it can be even more difficult to get to the bottom of whether the officer who shot Michael Brown did something wrong.

Even if it was his intent to kill the unarmed teenager, it’s not easy to say whether Brown was a threat to the officer’s life.

That makes it difficult to believe that he was justified in shooting him.

3.

The media’s role in this culture of violence has become so ingrained that the media has become a tool of the state.

It has become almost impossible to question or question the use or use of lethal violence by police.

And yet, when the media does challenge police tactics, it becomes almost impossible not to become a target of their outrage.

This doesn’t just apply to people who have been shot by police officers.

When media outlets, such as The Washington Post and MSNBC, take on controversial topics, they are immediately labeled as anti-police, even if the topic is clearly about the use by police of deadly Force.

And when they write about cases like those of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, they often find themselves labeled as racist or a racist, even though the cases have nothing to do with race.

In the end, this is what’s meant by the term “war on the police.”

This culture of impunity is also manifested in the way the media uses these killings as a way to demonize black people.

This means that they get away with this rhetoric in a way that the public can’t.

The most prevalent way in which the media is framing these cases is as instances of racial