A former data scientist for Thomson Reuters newswire service has provided some insight into why he was let go from the company recently: He dared to challenge BLM orthodoxy when it came to false claims about police violence.

The Daily Wire notes:

Zac Kriegman had worked at Thomson Reuters for more than six years, most recently as a director of data scientists. Concerned with data and statistics, Kriegman and his team advised numerous other divisions within the wire service, providing the information needed to report important information in news articles.

But in 2020, Kriegman noticed changes within the company, with coworkers publishing numerous articles about “White Privilege” on the company’s internal collaboration platform. When the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots broke out that summer, the platform was filled with support for the organization without any question as to the narrative being told about race in America.

“This concerned me. I had been following the academic research on BLM for years (for example, here, here, here and here), and I had come to the conclusion that the claim upon which the whole movement rested—that police more readily shoot black people—was false,” Kriegman wrote in an article published on Bari Weiss’ substack. “ The data was unequivocal. It showed that, if anything, police were slightly less likely to use lethal force against black suspects than white ones.”

After doing some research, he found out that based on a database of police-involved shootings complied by the Washington Post, police have actually fatally shot 39 percent more unarmed whites than blacks over the past five years.

But BLM activists claim the opposite is true, adding that since there are six times as many whites in the country as blacks, police should be shooting 600 percent more. Anything less than that, noted Kriegman, is evidence to BLM activists of police bias.

He went on to suggest that kind of comparison is not as accurate as comparing “Black suspects who pose a grave danger and white suspects who do the same.” However, he wrote that there isn’t reliable data for such a comparison.

So instead, he employed data from Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County Patrick Frey, whose calculations were based on FBI data, to discover that “black Americans account for 37 percent of those who murder police officers, and 34 percent of the unarmed suspects killed by police. Meanwhile, whites make up 42.7 percent of cop killers and 42 percent of the unarmed suspects shot by police—meaning whites are killed by police at a 7 percent higher rate than blacks.”

The Daily Wire added:

Kriegman broadened the analysis to include armed suspects, finding that with those numbers included, whites are shot at a 70% higher rate than blacks. He then mentions the only study that looks at the rate at which police use lethal force across racial groups, conducted by Harvard economist Roland Fryer. Fryer, who is black, tried to prove BLM’s narrative in 2016, but ended up disproving it by finding that, while black Americans and Latinos may experience some amount of police force, they are slightly less likely to be shot by police than whites.

“Unfortunately, because the BLM narrative was now conventional wisdom, police departments, under intense scrutiny from left-wing politicians and activists, scaled back patrols in dangerous neighborhoods filled with vulnerable black residents. This led to soaring violence in many communities and thousands of needless deaths—otherwise known as the Ferguson Effect,” Kriegman wrote in the blog.

But when he shared his findings on Reuters’ collaboration platform, he was blasted and ripped by white coworkers who lobbed insults at him rather than provide “even a single substantive challenge to the facts I was citing.”

His post was eventually removed and when he voiced concerns about its removal, he was told if he tried to bring up the subject again on the company comms channel he would be fired.

Without getting a resolution, Kriegman sent emails to colleagues and company leaders to discuss the threat and the online tactics by co-workers. But the following day he was informed by Human Resources that his access to his company computer had been revoked as well as to his communications systems. Three days later, he was let go.

“A decade ago, my experience at Thomson Reuters would have been unthinkable. Most Americans probably think it’s still unthinkable. That’s what makes it so dangerous. Most of us don’t understand how deeply compromised our news sources have become. Most of us have no idea that we are suffused with fictions and half-truths that sound sort of believable and are shielded from scrutiny by people whose job is to challenge them. This is true, above all, of my fellow liberals, who assume that only Republicans complain about the mainstream media. But this is not a partisan issue. This is a We The People issue,” he wrote.