How the Star Tribune continues to re-examine itself following murder of George Floyd

I just wanted to share this so people could comment on it.

How the Star Tribune continues to re-examine itself following murder of George Floyd

 

Premium access

 

I'm not a subscriber but was able to read it.

I wonder if it made a difference I went to it from a tweet?

 

No. Weird

 

Paywalled for me, too.

 

The column is accessible if you give them your email address or log on with facebook (now I'll probably get email alerts from the Strib till the end of time).

The column is long on warm and fuzzy, short on specifics. As someone who worked on the breaking news side, I consider the greatest vulnerability of the newsroom that it considers the police a privileged source -- that is, their report generally goes unquestioned, especially when events are just unfolding. The cops write the reports, and news media generally consider them as gospel. About the only thing that weakens that grip is when some witness on the scene records a video that contradicts the official version. That's rare indeed.

Usually, when a reporter and/or photog goes out to a scene, it's taped off and the people available to talk have little better idea what went down than the journalists who just parachuted in. After the mess is mopped up and the news team returns to base, there isn't much otheer than the cops and the courts to go by.

I can recall a few incidents where police actions were seriously questioned at our paper. One was where police shot a young man, saying he had a gun. Some witnesses, who turned out to be kinda sketchy, came forward and said the guy was unarmed. We reported their account and pressed the cops pretty persistently -- the ME had a real hard-on for this story. Ultimately, the witnesses proved to be drunks and the guy, who ended up paralyzed from the waist down, did admit having a gun (which was recovered) in his hand when he was shot.

In another incident, police ran down a fleeing suspect and put him in the back of a squad. A camera in the car videotaped him as he sat. He was having trouble breathing -- it turned out he had sickle-cell anemia. Cops through he was faking. Eventually he passed out and died in the back of the car.

Police released the video after the paper learned of its existence and requested it. It was posted online for public viewing, with a warning of its content. Did that change police policies or alter the paper's image? Maybe a little. But it took video to bring the issue to light.

Police began wearing body cameras in 2016, several years after the aforementioned case. They generally have been forthcoming in releasing footage when a fatal encounter occurs. I think that has improved their image, but people are on such a hair-trigger these days, an unconfirmed rumor can set a neighborhood off.

A former co-worker has set up an urban community reporting bureau with support from a local university. It mostly writes blow jobs on local folks, which the sources and their immediate family probably read and enjoy. I occasionally see a similar-type video doc on an individual, but public TV is the only medium I know of that does a decent job of that. Commercial TV seems limited to 2-minute hits or "reality" plots where some characters are racing against a manufactured deadline.

 

Great post, Mr. G.

Besides the media companies themselves, no one has been hurt more by the rise of the Internet — and the decline of newspapers and TV news — than the police.

They were the cops’ official mouthpiece for a long, long time, when there was no alternative source for information.

 

After the tragedy at the music festival at Houston, some of my friends were criticizing the media in the aftermath. If you remember there was a press conference with some law enforcement, and that person was the one that introduced the idea that a security guard had been injected with something. Felt a jab in the neck. Well, that turned out not to be true. But my friends, when the story was corrected, heaped on the media. But it wasn't a written story and it wasn't something the media went out and found, it was a law enforcement officer at an arranged press conference saying it. So do we not show those things live anymore? Does everything have to be vetted before an official, be it law enforcement or government or whatever, can address the public? Where does the answer lie?

 

Tough questions there. I'm not sure the fault lies so much in the purveyor as the consumer. We expect immediate gratification, and when the results are imperfect we get huffy. There's that old saying: You can have it quick, cheap or good. Choose any two. The people currently favor quick and cheap over good.

 

Use quotes? Use extraneous words to tell the reader this is something someone said, according to so and so etc

I’m having trouble thinking of a good sports analogy. Bonds lying, Lance Armstrong, people were mad at them not the press. Most lies in non-police stories people blame the liars not the journalists

 

Another factor that I'm sure we're all familiar with: reading takes effort. It's a lot easier to watch a video, zone out and have it pump thoughts into your brain. Unfortunately, video fakery is on the rise and probably will only get worse.

BTW I really like the concept Politifact concept that Poynter came up with. But again, it requires reading. Can it be adopted to video? Someone should give it a try.

 

Very difficult to change the foundational culture of any institution - whether it's the cops, or the newspaper covering them.

And it has to be said that for years - I got there in 1975 - Minneapolis / St. Paul was very quietly and politely and deeply racist.