> News reports what happened.

selectively reports what happened, and only if it tells the right narrative and/or generates clicks, yes.

Mass shooting where 3 innocents die = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported.

DUI crash where 5 innocents die = boring, wrong narrative; no report

Civilian kills police officer = boring, wrong narrative; no report

Police officer kills civilian (esp. with different color skin) = clicks and correct narrative and will therefore be reported

> Civilian kills police officer = boring, wrong narrative; no report

You're kidding, right?

Cops getting doused in water got national news coverage.

So'd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

The case you cited isn't just a civilian killing a cop at a traffic stop or during a random crime. It's a targeted assassination of two police officers for politicial reasons. It's more terrorism than crime. This makes it very newsworthy.

Equally, if a cop went out purely to kill some black men for reasons of political revenge, that would be newsworthy in a way that a random death at a traffic stop is not.

The status quo, however, is that random traffic stop deaths of white guys are not newsworthy, but random traffic stop deaths of black guys are national news. That racist double standard is what's being called out.

Maybe you should subscribe to a newspaper or two because otherwise this is what you get -- news that people click on.

I wish people would stop blaming the news and blame themselves.

The 19th century version of clicks is "readership," and newspapers pursue it.