SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Mostly there were dry headlines like "Mistrial Declared in Black Motorist's Shooting by Officer." (Photo: David Geitgey Sierralupe/flickr/cc)
If We Were 'Staggered' by Police Brutality, Wouldn't Walter Scott Mistrial Have Knocked Us Over?
Corporate media reported the mistrial in the case of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, whom video showed shooting unarmed African-American Walter Scott eight times in the back in April 2015, handcuffing him on the ground, and then dropping a taser alongside his body--this after Slager stopped Scott for a broken tail light.
Dec 11, 2016
Corporate media reported the mistrial in the case of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, whom video showed shooting unarmed African-American Walter Scott eight times in the back in April 2015, handcuffing him on the ground, and then dropping a taser alongside his body--this after Slager stopped Scott for a broken tail light.
Mostly there were dry headlines like "Mistrial Declared in Black Motorist's Shooting by Officer." An AP piece got the headline that many were "at a loss" at the outcome; other headlines had them "stunned." The story itself included comments that started to get at the depth of folks' despair: "There's a jury full of people and they cannot decide if it's illegal to shoot someone who is running away from you?" asks one source. "What do you say about a country that feels this way about black people?" "Do we really have anything that can seriously be called the administration of criminal justice?" asks another.
Indeed. Corporate media keep referring to how the country has been "rocked" or "staggered" by revelations of police brutality in black communities--evoking the question, if we were really staggered, wouldn't something like this knock us over?
Instead, we got only media gestures toward documented research on how hard it is to convict police officers and bland references to "racial tensions." The Daily News (12/5/16) was the only paper I found editorializing on the mistrial: Headlined "Believe Your Eyes," the paper acknowledged that they don't generally weigh in on questions of guilt, but that measured against the video evidence, Slager's testimony--that he was gripped by "total fear" and "fired until the threat was stopped as I was trained to do"--"can only be described as emanating from a parallel universe."
The New York Times (4/8/16) did run an editorial last April, saying the quick charging of Slager was "encouraging," along with FBI and Justice Department involvement. Such wrongful deaths "present a clear danger to the civic fabric. The country needs to confront this issue directly and get this problem under control." The paper's editorial silence on the mistrial suggests the important gap between the relative ease of calling for change and the difficulty of examining why it doesn't come.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Corporate media reported the mistrial in the case of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, whom video showed shooting unarmed African-American Walter Scott eight times in the back in April 2015, handcuffing him on the ground, and then dropping a taser alongside his body--this after Slager stopped Scott for a broken tail light.
Mostly there were dry headlines like "Mistrial Declared in Black Motorist's Shooting by Officer." An AP piece got the headline that many were "at a loss" at the outcome; other headlines had them "stunned." The story itself included comments that started to get at the depth of folks' despair: "There's a jury full of people and they cannot decide if it's illegal to shoot someone who is running away from you?" asks one source. "What do you say about a country that feels this way about black people?" "Do we really have anything that can seriously be called the administration of criminal justice?" asks another.
Indeed. Corporate media keep referring to how the country has been "rocked" or "staggered" by revelations of police brutality in black communities--evoking the question, if we were really staggered, wouldn't something like this knock us over?
Instead, we got only media gestures toward documented research on how hard it is to convict police officers and bland references to "racial tensions." The Daily News (12/5/16) was the only paper I found editorializing on the mistrial: Headlined "Believe Your Eyes," the paper acknowledged that they don't generally weigh in on questions of guilt, but that measured against the video evidence, Slager's testimony--that he was gripped by "total fear" and "fired until the threat was stopped as I was trained to do"--"can only be described as emanating from a parallel universe."
The New York Times (4/8/16) did run an editorial last April, saying the quick charging of Slager was "encouraging," along with FBI and Justice Department involvement. Such wrongful deaths "present a clear danger to the civic fabric. The country needs to confront this issue directly and get this problem under control." The paper's editorial silence on the mistrial suggests the important gap between the relative ease of calling for change and the difficulty of examining why it doesn't come.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Corporate media reported the mistrial in the case of South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, whom video showed shooting unarmed African-American Walter Scott eight times in the back in April 2015, handcuffing him on the ground, and then dropping a taser alongside his body--this after Slager stopped Scott for a broken tail light.
Mostly there were dry headlines like "Mistrial Declared in Black Motorist's Shooting by Officer." An AP piece got the headline that many were "at a loss" at the outcome; other headlines had them "stunned." The story itself included comments that started to get at the depth of folks' despair: "There's a jury full of people and they cannot decide if it's illegal to shoot someone who is running away from you?" asks one source. "What do you say about a country that feels this way about black people?" "Do we really have anything that can seriously be called the administration of criminal justice?" asks another.
Indeed. Corporate media keep referring to how the country has been "rocked" or "staggered" by revelations of police brutality in black communities--evoking the question, if we were really staggered, wouldn't something like this knock us over?
Instead, we got only media gestures toward documented research on how hard it is to convict police officers and bland references to "racial tensions." The Daily News (12/5/16) was the only paper I found editorializing on the mistrial: Headlined "Believe Your Eyes," the paper acknowledged that they don't generally weigh in on questions of guilt, but that measured against the video evidence, Slager's testimony--that he was gripped by "total fear" and "fired until the threat was stopped as I was trained to do"--"can only be described as emanating from a parallel universe."
The New York Times (4/8/16) did run an editorial last April, saying the quick charging of Slager was "encouraging," along with FBI and Justice Department involvement. Such wrongful deaths "present a clear danger to the civic fabric. The country needs to confront this issue directly and get this problem under control." The paper's editorial silence on the mistrial suggests the important gap between the relative ease of calling for change and the difficulty of examining why it doesn't come.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.