EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
‘Spotlight’ on Police Violence Fails to Illuminate
Media connection sparks interest, not introspection
Seattle freelance videographer Jud Morris thought he saw news April 17 when he found a police officer standing over a man lying on the sidewalk, telling him, "I'm going to beat the fucking Mexican piss out of you, homey. You feel me?" and kicking him in the head.
Morris captured the incident, including the next moment when a second officer stomped on 21-year-old Martin Monetti's leg--and the next, when the officers realized they had the wrong guy and let Monetti up, bloodied, without offering medical assistance--and brought it immediately to local Fox affiliate KCPQ (known as Q13), where he was told it would not air (Stranger, 5/7/10): "They said it is not that egregious. Those were the exact words."
Morris put his video on YouTube, which got him fired as a freelancer from Q13. Then rival station KIRO bought and aired the tape to tremendous public response, leading Q13 to sue them for ownership, claiming Morris was on their clock when he shot the video they wouldn't air.
There was fallout: The Q13 news director who'd claimed they weren't suppressing the tape, only holding it until they unearthed "important facts that we believed would add context to the story," resigned, and a senior assignment editor was fired (Stranger, 5/18/10). The officer, gang unit detective Shandy Cobane, apologized tearfully, "I know my words cut deep" --without mentioning his boots. Police launched an "internal investigation" (Seattle Times, 5/7/10).
But somehow it's that "not that egregious" that sticks in the mind, for what it suggests is journalists' tolerance level for police abuse and racism. And though reporters credit themselves with a "national media storm" (Seattle Times, 5/15/10) around the incident, nothing about their coverage suggests any serious grappling with that part of the story.
There was acknowledgment of institutional closeness between media and police departments, particularly Q13's airing of Washington's Most Wanted, which Morris suggested reflected a relationship with police the station didn't want to compromise. (Q13 denied any conflict in a May 11 statement: "We're proud of our relationship with law enforcement and the capture of 124 fugitives through our Washington's Most Wanted program. However, we have not and will not hesitate to report on issues surrounding police.")
Fewer reports took note of the fact, also recounted by Morris, that "a key [Q13] staffer was talking to the police as she was viewing" the tape, which he found "kind of odd" (Seattle Times, 5/8/10). The Stranger alt-weekly (5/19/10) published claims by an unidentified Q13 employee that management was bowing to "friends at SPD" in not airing the footage, but it doesn't sound as though pressure was required.
(Indeed, in SPD's version, the station staffer who called "didn't think the video constituted a major issue. But [Interim Police Chief John] Diaz said it was up to police commanders to decide if an incident rises to the level of possible misconduct"--Seattle Times, 5/21/10.)
Journalists seemed genuinely not to understand that what was disturbing was not the "language" Cobane used with Monetti, but the casually violent racism it evinced in combination with physical abuse. How might such an attitude affect all aspects of Cobane's policing? Is this racism reflected in gang unit policy? Is it OK for police to "beat the piss out of" people, or to threaten to? Media overwhelmingly declined to pull back from the incident to ask the questions it suggested about law enforcement's approach to communities of color.
The Stranger's Dominic Holden (5/11/10) noted that the cops who beat Monetti showed no interest in helping him once they realized he was innocent; it wasn't a detail that interested other reporters. Nor was much made of the non-response of Cobane's colleagues, though, as an op-ed in the Kansas City Star (5/11/10) suggested, "Had Cobane's policing ‘technique' been unusual, at least one of the officers should've demonstrated some discomfort." Members of a community coalition (Seattle Times, 5/19/10) pointed to an "insidious culture of tolerance" for misconduct among police, but such critics were rarely heard from.
Another Seattle Times story (5/8/10) included a provocative comment from Rich O'Neill of Seattle's Police Officer Guild: "If people believe that in the course of police work everything is ‘Officer Friendly' and ‘Mr. Rogers,' that's a very naive view of what goes on." But coming at the very end of the article, the statement reads as a case closer, rather than an invitation to inquiry.
Speaking of systemic concerns, is it coincidence that the story got near-zero play on national TV, except from CNN's Rick Sanchez, a Cuban-American (5/13/10). (Sanchez didn't precisely elevate his subject, following it up on "Rick's List" with another video: "That is Hannah Montana, and I'm told that what she's doing is called grinding....")
It was clearly the "caught on tape" angle, more than what was caught on tape, that pushed Monetti's beating past media's threshold of newsworthiness. Likewise, when ABC's Good Morning America (5/23/10) reported the Detroit police killing of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones with a screen tag asking, "Is Reality TV To Blame?," they might as well have added, "Because That Would Make It Interesting."
Jones was asleep on her sofa when police, looking for a suspect in a murder, lobbed a "stun" grenade through the window of her home and charged in. Initially police claimed officer Joseph Weekley's gun discharged in an altercation with Jones' grandmother, which she disputed; police later suggested the two "may have simply collided" (Detroit News, 5/19/10). The errant shot struck Aiyana in the neck. Her singed clothes suggest she may also have been burned by the grenade (Detroit News, 5/20/10). The actual murder suspect, who was in an upstairs apartment, surrendered without incident.
The raid raises questions enough, but most accounts zeroed in on the fact that Detroit police were accompanied at the time by crew from A&E's true-crime show The First 48. This provoked outrage: Mitch Albom fulminated, "What on earth is a television crew doing in this mix?... Even if they ask one question, they are in the way" (Detroit Free Press, 5/23/10). But more pointed questions, as when the Detroit News' Charlie LeDuff wondered (5/20/10) why "Hollywood [is] allowed to run around behind the scenes when the police department does not even put out a routine crime blotter informing the public about daily happenings," were rare.
Ostensibly considering the relationship between police and media, reporters stubbornly avoided half the story, asking only how such arrangements might affect police behavior. Are journalists or reality show producers impartial recorders of police they're embedded with? Do police exercise influence over what is taped or aired? Do journalists pursue analogous relationships with institutions like community groups that might counter or complicate the police view of things?
A Detroit News editorial (5/19/10) rightly asked whether the show affected the raid's timing and procedures, but stated, "These are questions the department's brass must answer." Why not ask A&E? Surely journalists have sources in the media business? Yet with police reps on record everywhere, A&E "denied comment" left and right (New York Times, 5/22/10; Washington Post, 5/18/10; ABC, 5/23/10). In what sense does such coverage "put a spotlight on police reality shows" (Good Morning America, 5/23/10)?
Media professor Laurie Ouellette was virtually alone in noting how such "cheap" shows suit the needs of cable channels (New York Times, 5/22/10), and also addressed the specific sorts of distortions they promote: "There is evidence that they do tend to go into lower-income neighborhoods and are less likely to be shown policing affluent white suburban spaces." The Times paraphrased Ouellette's point as "cameras even affect what type of police calls are shown," though she was talking about choices made by human beings.
The New Zealand Herald (5/21/10) answered questions many outlets didn't even ask, with just a phone call to Dallas police, who chose not to renew their contract with A&E in 2008. The First 48 "did help recruiting and portrayed police in a favorable manner," former Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle told the paper, noting that "department brass had final say on editing and exercised its rights on several occasions."
Not having dug very deep, corporate media didn't dislodge any of their own standard practices. These include a never-ending credulity for law enforcement--at least, if an individual suspect changed their initial explanation for how they killed someone, it's unlikely that reporters would say he or she had "pulled back from that a bit" (NPR, 5/18/10)--and risibly short shrift to community voices, as reflected by NPR host Allison Keyes' question (5/18/10) to her Detroit correspondent: "Jerome, let me ask briefly, how are people in Detroit feeling? Are they angry or sad--and I mean briefly."
Not listening leads to tone-deaf reporting, as when the New York Times followed (5/22/10) the heart-rending words of Mertilla Jones about her granddaughter's final moments, "Lord Jesus, I ain't never seen nothing like that in my life," with reporters' insipid reference to Detroit, "where deadly violence can seem routine."
The NPR segment (5/18/10) indicated how media see things. Asked whether Jones' death has affected people's trust in police, NPR's correspondent, WDET news director Jerome Vaughn, explained:
It has. You know, I guess the other thing to say, though, is there was a police officer killed on May 3 in the same neighborhood. He was killed; four others were wounded. And so there's been a lot of questions about what it means to have raids like these, and how much police have to do to protect themselves. So there's been a lot of tension on both sides.
Both sides? Both the not-killing-police side and the not-killing-children side?
When community voices are heard from, they complicate that divisive frame. Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality noted (Detroit News, 5/24/10) how the group tries "to resolve neighborhood disputes before they require" police, going "door-to-door in neighborhoods to identify the problems." "It's something the police department would be able to do if it had far more officers. ‘That's where we're taking up the slack,' he said."
There is much that might be said about cops and media. But talking about talking about it is not the same thing. Without genuine inquiry, "serious" news reporting of stories like that of Aiyana Stanley Jones or Martin Monetti just feeds the same beast shows like The First 48 do, alarming people more than informing them, distorting understanding of the sources of crime and contributing to a state of affairs where reporters watching a tape of a cop kicking a prone man in the head just don't see anything wrong.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

15 Comments so far
Show AllEvery city ought to have an independent elected citizen review committee of police conduct. They should be able to review police actions in individual cases and arrest and prosecute violations of law and regulations.
If, indeed, the people serve the community then the community ought of oversee the police conduct.
Ombudsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman
You're spot on. Here in Portland we have a bunch of killers dressed as policemen. They are aided by a corrupt Mult. Cty. Atty who the fools keep electing. I am sorry to say but I was against the latest stimulus extention for one reason: the cops got money to feed their bloated, quasi-military, extralegal budgets. Fewer cops mean fewer criminals! Why? Because they can do less profiling and political mischief and more real community work. What did they do before SWAT teams, anyhow? The police used to be a part of the community: now they are a community apart. End of story.
I do remember when police actually HELPED people instead of intimidating and/or brutalizing them - but that was before the Vietnam War.
Except of course if you were non-white, or obviously gay or a long hair.
Your Beaver Cleaver police never really existed. Nonetheless. things are much worse now because of the militarization of the police.
At this point, the police are clearly enemies of the people.
Say, do they still have the Chief's Forum in Portland? That's where minorities and other, usually outsiders, get to have coffee and rub elbows with the decision makers. It was heady stuff back in the early 1990s when I was liaison to that group for the then, County Executive, who was probably the last decent person to hold that position.
And when you say "Mult. Cty. Atty ," do you mean that Mike Schrunk is still the District Attorney?
At least Portland does have the great Portland Cop Watch group.
And just how difficult do you think it would be to intimidate those 'elected citizens' of such a review committee? Give me a break - police have been brutalizing, murdering, and intimidating ordinary 'citizens' ever since they were invented. Of course, in countries where they are unarmed, there is much less intimidation of the public - but that only happens in free countries - ie, those where the government is afraid of the people, instead of the other way around...
Nothing new here - a big yawn, sad to say.
Face it - we live in a police state. SWAT teams are highly trained local military units - just look at their uniforms and choice of weaponry and tactics.
This type of unreported behavior is endemic to policing. Strange things happen to journalists who try to to report these episodes.
The idea of a citizen watchdog group overseeing police conduct is nice in theory.
But, like corporate media's "public editors" and "ombudsmen", in practice such bodies are either outright paper tigers (paper watchdogs?) in the first place, or become quickly co-opted or sidetracked.
In cities like Philadelphia and New York, the "Citizens' Crime Commission(s)", ostensibly established to police the police, minimize confrontation and conflict with municipal and police authorities.
Instead, they effectively partner with the police by administering crime "tip lines", monetary rewards including victims' rights-related compensation, and sponsoring PR campaigns, e.g. "Stop Snitchin'".
They tend to function more as bureaucratic law enforcement auxiliaries, not adversarial reformers.
I would be thrilled to learn that there are exceptions that test this rule, because in my experience such well-intentioned remedies don't seem to inspire even respect, much less fear, in the institutions they're supposed to be critically monitoring.
If they are elected by district this wouldn't be the case, methinks. Minority district representatives would have to live with their neighbors, every night. Just like the good ol' days when everyone knew where the cops lived. I think this would instill some discipline on both sides. The police are like motorcycle gangs: individual sociopaths who's main strength comes from collective cowardice in overwhelming #s and lots of weapons.
The scene shown where four cops are beating one man who's already down says a lot about so-called heroism. Perhaps it's becoming the upside-down world replacement for cowardice?
In this photo, I also see depicted the tactics used in the offshore torture camps. Once again, the vulnerable individual becomes a sort of live punching bag to a bunch of unprincipled derelict human animals in uniform.
These instances explain why power--and there is power in wearing a uniform and walking around with a weapon on display--must always be check-balanced by rules in place to protect citizens.
A number of TV shows seem to be on air expressly to:
1. Make violence seem like a routine part of American life
2. Create a tolerance for extreme forms of violence, particularly when these efforts are directed at (alleged) "terrorists."
3. Normalize the idea of police coming into our homes, which is to say nullifying the presumption of innocence as well as that of privacy.
The net result is to massage the collective psyche to the degree that it no longer recognizes the inverted forms of totalitarianism in its midst. In this way, the abuse of power no longer requires any consensus. It's become a seamless part of the grain of American culture.
Bravo? Not!
You summarized the master plan in a nutshell once again, Sioux.
Another net result of massaging the collective psyche is that citizens no longer pay attention to whistleblowers of any stripe.
Thank you, Ray... and I agree about the Whistleblowers. Of course citizens trained to fall into line with a number of authoritarian institutions will tend to trust in "their leaders" and therefore mistrust any with the chutspah to expose "the goods" on these often corrupt, high-placed individuals.
Two things help me to sleep at night. One is that a cursory view of America's past reveals numerous cycles or basic trends. There have been repeated phases of repression followed usually by explosions in favor of human rights (often extended to a previously disenfranchised group).
The second matter comes from my study of the larger cycles of time. Presently there are several factors that encourage government efforts in the way of controlling citizens, this inducement based on a purposeful climate of fear. This, too, shall pass. IF we live through it (and depending on the status of Gaia by that time), radical developments will emerge to become the RULE starting in 2020 and culminating with a very different ethos guiding international law by 2025.
Patience, anyone?
Illuminating these long-term trends in no way suggests that any of us put off doing today what our own instincts, resources, and souls compel us to do. It takes a lot of drops to make an ocean, and a lot of bodies to foment a movement.
And Ray, I learn a lot from your posts.
I remember over 40 years ago, there was a lot of publicity about police brutality and it helped control it then - because back then the media seemed to be doing a pretty good job. But the Reagan administration did away with the fairness doctrine and that seemed to open the floodgates for the right wing taking over the media. Obama has said he has no intention of bringing back the fairness doctrine. Some people say there is plenty of free choice out there, but not if you live in small towns or rural areas: in places like those, you are lucky to be able to get anything moderate, not to mention progressive. In my little town, you can't even get MSNBC on cable.
We had a pretty nice country in the early 1960's. But after JFK was assassinated, along with his brother, and Martin Luther King, the USA seemed to start down a long, dark path that may in fact lead to a new dark age worldwide. There is no guarantee that the internet will survive. It may be the last hope of human freedom, but it could disappear overnight. Even now I have suddenly found that YouTube will not work on my PC, reasons unknown. Stay tuned.