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
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 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.