Last night’s on CBS‘ 60 Minutes, viewers got to see an encore broadcast of an embarrassingly sycophantic tribute to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Glenn Greenwald takes it apart at Salon.com, explaining how CBS regaled viewers with “news” about “the heart of the man with a world of worry,” and documented—through dogged investigative work—how Panetta “stays in touch with his humanity.”
This was no isolated incident; hero worship is a endemic feature of corporate media. Consider the current issue of Newsweek, where one can find another embarrassing tribute to a supposedly tough talking leader. This time it’s New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly.
What’s writer Christopher Dickey‘s angle? Look no further than the subhead:
The New York City Police Commissioner is beating the enemy—if only the feds don’t get in his way
Kelly is the “pugnacious police commissioner” who “looks bulldog-tough even in bespoke suits.” And consider his terror-fighting skills:
Since he took over as police commissioner in the aftermath of 9/11, Kelly’s most critical mission has been to thwart all terrorist threats against the city, and he’s aimed to do that, in some cases, even before a plot is entirely clear to the plotters themselves.
That’s right—he’s busting plots that even the plotters themselves don’t know they’re plotting.
At the moment, there are two major scandals involving the NYPD under Kelly’s leadership: Surveillance of local Muslim communities and the pervasive harassment—primarily of young men of color—associated with the department’s “stop and frisk” policies. It would be helpful, then, if a major news outlet were to come out and defend Kelly’s honor.
Dickey—the magazine’s Paris bureau chief and Mideast editor—does an able job standing up to civil libertarians and the New York Times:
Kelly’s “intelligence-led” and “pro-active” policing has observed the spirit of the law but pushed its limits, provoking outrage from civil libertarians. He has been idolized by the New York tabloids for keeping the city safe, and excoriated by the New York Times for abusing his authority. A federal court recently opened the way for a class-action suit to curtail the cops’ hundreds of thousands of “stop and frisk” encounters with young men, mostly blacks and Hispanics. “We are doing everything we reasonably can under the law to protect the city,” says Kelly, emphasizing “under the law.” Critics say the policy drives a wedge between police and the community; the police claim it keeps guns off the streets in a city where 96 percent of shooting victims are black or Hispanic. By the cops’ count, their searches turn up 8,000 knives and other weapons every year, including about 600 to 700 handguns. (They note that since 2006, a majority of the police force has been made up of minorities.)
That all might as well be lifted from an NYPD press release.
Those challenging stop and frisk are not doing so because they believe the policy follows “the spirit of the law but pushed its limits.” They believe it to be illegal. The Center for Constitution Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs, explained that the lawsuit
challenges stop-and-frisk as a violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits racially discriminatory policing, as well as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Lawyers working on the case could have explained this—as could any of the many activist groups that have challenged stop and frisk for years. But Newsweek couldn’t be bothered. Instead, the magazine gives readers NYPD-supplied numbers on the guns and knives confiscated thanks to stop and frisk. What they don’t tell you is that those weapons were recovered thanks to hundreds of thousands of arguably illegal searches (over 600,000 in 2011), and that this represents a tiny percentage of the estimated number of illegal guns in the city. But that’s the kind of context an actual news report would give you.
Dickey credits Kelly with New York’s overall safety—and manages to zing the Times and the city of Philadelphia:
Beyond terrorism, New Yorkers are safer today than anyone might have thought possible 20 years ago. The homicide rate—the most reliable indicator of conventional violent crime—is a small fraction of what it was in 1990, when 2,245 people were killed in New York City. The homicide rate is also substantially lower now than it was when Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Kelly took over from Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s “zero tolerance” regime in 2002. New York’s homicide rate last year was 6.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. Philadelphia, highly praised by the New York Times for giving up its stop-and-frisk policy, had a rate more than three times higher, at 20.7 per 100,000.
So if you prefer your police force to respect citizens’ constitutional rights, you move to Philadelphia—where you’re more likely to be killed. (The very same argument was made by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in response to a Times editorial about stop and frisk.)
Philadelphia settled a lawsuit and modified its stop-and-frisk policy in the middle of last year. There is no possible way to argue that this change would account for the city’s high homicide rate—a problem in the city that predates stop and frisk.
Dickey also vouches for Kelly’s surveillance of New York-area Muslims:
Just before the anniversary of the atrocity last year, the Associated Press launched a lengthy series of stories that took a critical look at Kelly’s policing, detailing the surveillance and undercover work in Muslim communities, the cozy relationship with the CIA and the troubled NYPD–FBI relations. The series won a Pulitzer Prize—and NYPD supporters have been rebutting its details ever since. What Kelly resents in particular is the implication, never proven in print, that he’d gone beyond the very carefully lawyered legal constraints on police activities. And, as he sees it: “These questions would not surface—and did not surface—in 2002.”
So “NYPD supporters have been rebutting” the “details” of the Associated Press‘ remarkable investigation of the department. That implies that they’ve documented some problems in the story. But Dickey doesn’t explain what they might be—he only hands the argument back to Kelly, who “resents in particular” the idea that his surveillance program might be illegal. Note to Dickey: Hurt feelings are not a legal argument.
Kelly impresses in other ways too:
Displaying little interest in money, Kelly lives with his wife, Veronica, in a comfortable but modest two-bedroom apartment in Battery Park.
Despite having “little interest in money,” Kelly took a $450,000 security job at Bear Stearns during his time away from law enforcement.
The piece closes by noting that Kelly seems to resemble one of his idols: Teddy Roosevelt, who was once commissioner of the New York City police department. If Kelly really is interested in a political career, we can be sure that at least one reporter will be cheering him on.




Given this heartfelt hagiography, the NYPD surely could afford to substantially cut its public relations budget … down to, say, the cost of reprinting this paean to police brutality.
It would be the austere thing to do.
NYT/New(sp)weak: malreported doublplusgood person rewrite unperson upwise sub.
“”Since he took over as police commissioner in the aftermath of 9/11, Kelly’s most critical mission has been to thwart all terrorist threats against the city, and he’s aimed to do that, in some cases, even before a plot is entirely clear to the plotters themselves. – The article””
And people say the thought police are long gone or non-existent!
i just wonder why it is that when the police or for that matter barack obama and other politicians violate the law,that is, people’s constitutional rights, they are not prosecuted as lawbreakers? Hello! ACLU
Wasn’t there an additional problem: the cops being told to ignore actual crimes and concentrate on stop & frisk?
I’m a long haired, aging, white, male who lives on the upper East side of Manhattan. I always say just look at that perpetual frown frozen into Ray Kelly’s face. It never changes. I’m certainly glad that I’m not living in that mindset. This stop and search thing is wrong, especially the way it targets its participants. Overall, police entrapment and the feeling on their part that they can get away with doing anything to citizens isn’t nearly as bad a it was living under the Guiliani police state mentality. Police harassment seems to me to have been much worse when Rudy was around… but certainly Kelly has brought in his own police state mentality along with Bloomies.
New York’s big law enforcement successes have amounted to a higher crime rate than in other big cities at a time of falling crime rates, achieved by massive violation of fundamental human rights…
Stop and frisk can be invasive.And the very idea that cops would do such a thing to three young men wearing gang colors,lurking around a store that has been robbed 70 times ,instead of those three old woman walking down the street just smacks of profiling,doesn’t it?New developments would be “the wand”.An instrument not all that different from what the secret service uses to detect weapons.Drug and weapon sniffing dogs and so.That would give police probable cause to “stop and frisk”.If you have a gun -and no permit…. I sincerely hope you eat pavement, and go to jail.
I have a home in Philadelphia.Believe me you have an animal sect out there.They care nothing about life,and they are armed to the teeth.I hear libs screaming about the constitution(as if they give a shit).What i don’t hear is how to disarm,defang,arrest and incarcerate theses scum as quickly as possible.And no……..we should not tax the rich to set up a vacation resort in Fla, for all those poor poor criminals who were never loved by their mothers.
LA is doing a great job by the way
Oh, bullshit. Jesus, you are full of it. Another farrago of claptrap, lies, and irritable mental gestures. Keep diggin, kid.
“I hear libs screaming about the constitution(as if they give a shit).
Quit peddling bullshit.
Hey not to change the subject but since FAIR wont write about it…….How about BAM claiming executive privilege and lauding it like a warm blanket around his attorney general?Hundreds dead.Drug dealers getting weapons from our AG.The president refusing to answer.The AG being cited for contempt before congress.Yeah Im sorry .Those libs are great stewards of our constitution.Or am i peddling bullshit? :)
Why yes, you’re peddling bullshit. Thanks for asking.
Well then I apologize Dick.Im glad that you are telling us all -that Obama has NOT in fact claimed executive privilege.Or that he has an AG that has NOT been cited for contempt.Or that fast and furious did NOT happened.And that the dead are really alive.Im glad you cleared that up.All is well.Thank you Dick
I’m not saying any of those things…Thanks for playing