USA Today (10/15/10) has a valuable article by Kevin Johnson on citizen’s use of video to document police brutality–citing numerous examples where such recording was instrumental in exposing violent behavior on the part of cops.
The piece also includes the perspective of cops who don’t want to be videotaped, who produce zero evidence for their assertion that such taping “has had a chilling effect on some officers who are now afraid to act for fear of retribution by video.”
USA Today‘s editors, though, put those unsubstantiated claims in the article’s subhead in the print edition–“Are Incidents Caught on Tape Hindering Officers?”–as well as in the main headline over the continuation of the story on page 2: “Some Fear Videos Create a ‘Chilling Effect’ by Making Police Hesitant.”
It’s a striking demonstration of the corporate media’s instinctive attraction to power.
Yeah, we sure don’t want to inhibit their propensity to break the law and beat suspects unconscious. It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY, USA Today. Something you seem to be losing grasp of. Perhaps we need cameras focused on your editors.
I am no fan of the corporate media but I think there is another factor besides their being corporate that comes into play when poor or no coverage is given to reprehensible acts committed by police and politicians. The mainstream media relies upon access to police records and political contacts for their news. Making enemies of either could dry up that source.
Why, B F Thiele, I think you might be onto something. Your average editor at the USA Today can’t imagine being mis-treated by the cops, so they say to themselves, “What’s the big deal here? The police never beat the shit out of innocent people. That person must have deseved it.”
I’m not sure what you mean, George. Are yousaying that if the media uses whatever meanes it has at it’s disposal to shed light on an event (bystander video etc.) that it will not get the cooperation of law enforcement insofar as presenting their interpretation of events? Law enforcement itself has cameras in cop cars, and uses traffic cameras and commercial business cameras in law enforcement. Stay in controll and follow proper proceedures and any video will demonstrate that fact. Blow up and that too will be recorded.
Film does not lie in a sense .It is a wonderful record that illuminates more speculation then it creates.It is now and forever more- a part of our lives.
To George Haeseler:
1. Police records should always be public records, even if with a delay period to allow completion of investigations. Are you forgetting who pays police?
2. Police records are not 100% true. There are all kinds of examples of police falsifying reports.
Pretty soon, they’ll be making another new law under the “security umbrella”, one that says it’s against the law to video tape anyone in authoritative power!
Leslie……….Want to be driven nuts by the level of secrecy in the highest authoritative power?Go on Google or any place you would like, and try to find anything at all about our most brilliant presidents school grades.From Harvard on back it is minimal.They are sealed.Along with all his college works and papers,including publications he authored.Complete sanitization..We know only that he did fair to middlin at Occidental . Slightly less than a B. Which leads the question how did he ever ever ever get accepted at Harvard?You can-not enter Harvard without a basically perfect grade point…..Period.I would give him that he interviewed well. Accepting that- his entrance is still impossible with his grades.What we know about Obama from birth forward is what he has told us.
Just read that a reporter(big Obama supporter)admitted that Obama told him ,as the stym was being passed- that contrary to what he told America there were NO shovel ready jobs.It was off the record so it was silenced.Tell me again what our free press is supposed to be doing oh grand poo bah FAIR?
David Brooks is neither a “big Obama supporter” nor a trustworthy source.
https://fair.org/blog/2009/07/23/nyts-david-brooks-scares-up-more-false-figures/
See also “David Brooks vs. the Real World: Columnist dreams up his own reality”:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3692
Jim maybe” big”is the wrong word .Though he says he voted for Obama,or at least ended up supporting him..And he kept the secret that Obama had lied, and continued to lie for many months(till bam said exactly that ON the record) ……if what Brooks says is true of course.Now Brooks uses the excuse he was “off the record”so kept quiet.Yet if you know the man is a lier- it should color all your work… Still I see in his article log positive works on Obama.For that reason I think he is scum.But It is all pretty damning.I think the only answer for you Obama supporters is to attack Mr brooks immediately.As usual personally, AND professionally- instead of investigating the charges.If I were you I would move on that quick.Steve Randall who wrote the piece you quoted is not himself “trustworthy” if that is the right word in this case.He is acting as a defense men for Bam.And not a first rounder in the draft either.What you need is Bam to call him(Brooks) a lier.Word is he will not, since tapes exist.If he is taken to the mat word is Brooks will consider the” off the record tapes” no longer bound……Consider this a moment this white house will not address.DOA
Why, Jim Naureckas, do you feel the need to answer to people who are known liars and presenters of the most vile and idiotic nonsense? You immediately answered a paranoid, palaverin’ cracker with a link that he’s going to either ignore or point to as “proof” that you’re wrong. Face it: he’s like the neighbor’s dog who shits on your lawn every once in a while–it drives you nuts, but goddamn if you have to pick it up.
Henry Fonda in “the Grapes of Wrath” : “Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there, ma.”
Today, thank our lucky stars, there’s Video Tape!
Fair enough, Jim. No pun intended . . . .
Well Tim today was a good day for me .I was called a paranoid,palaverin’cracker .A known liar of the most vile and idiotic nonesense……….by a bloody socialist.A socialist who if you can believe it because the two just don’t go together- plays as an elitist, playing as an intellectual.But who…. is really just a radical moron, with a chip on his shoulder.We have a lot of your ilk in government now Timmy boy.Lot less come early November.Jim be under no illusions that every ‘VOTER” is susceptable to your fact or logic.Liberal logic now known as bullshit.And Frank….Great movie.Always I think of the brutality of people in a system grown to big and to powerful that the little guy has to fight to just survive.Our biggest corporation .The one that dwarfs all others as ants about an elephant.The one that if given any more power will grind anyone who defies it under its boot is the Federal government.November 2nd the little guy will stand up and knock the giant down a few steps.
Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response. And like an amoeba, that may be the extent of his range.
My Range is low D to Around B flat on the top side. Unless I do Falsetto like the B gees- but hey thanks for asking Jockey babe. Now back to your fish tank cleaning. Hey didn’t you die in a bathtub accident?
michael e is incomprehensible. Do people have such short memories that they don’t know WHICH party was responsible for the financial fiasco that put us in a Great Recession? Now the polls say that those same people are likely to get elected to do it all over again? They even promised to do so. I am reminded of what the “Twins”, Schwartenegger and Whitman say: (Paraphrased), people keep electing the same Republicans over and over again and expect a different outcome? Not a chance. Republicans were responsible for the financial meltdown and promise to keep doing it.
Deregulation promotes invention they say nd sure enough they invented derivatives which have no monetary value at all and make millions buying and selling them to the gullible for one thing. Of course, somebody loses and you can bet it’s you. Getting A ratings on crippling mortgages? Are you sure you want to go through the same thing again?
Cheez, get real people.
A friend of mine who lives in ORLANDO has been attacked by COPS. Now he has to fight in a court agaisnt the POLICE to demosntrate he was abused physically. BUT If he lost he can go to jail unfairly. He´s a very good person. What can I do to help him?. This is so unfair. POLICE BRUTALITY IS THE NEW TERRORISM.