Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

The police claim that they left because the angry crowd was pounding and pushing on the cars, and the cops wanted to de-escalate the situation. If (and I stress IF) this is accurate, and IF they properly arranged for a medical unit to be dispatched, this is not an unreasonable explanation. Since the only video I've seen cuts off right after the impact, we have no way of verifying this claim.

Yes, and if they *did* do all they needed with medical units and such, that's good, but the impression it gives is negative based on the headline alone.

[Lord Shonus]

All the headline says is "woman at protest hit by sherrif's vehicle", and the article itself does not take sides.

[redwallzyl]

All the headline says is "woman at protest hit by sherrif's vehicle", and the article itself does not take sides.

Regardless the optics as far as the police go are terrible. They really need to be extra careful about this stuff. Even if they are in the right in a situation they have created so much distrust that a negative reaction is inevitable for any mistake they make. They cant afford to keep having incidents like this happen.

[Lord Shonus]

While this is true, based on the video I don't really know what they could have done to prevent it. The two police cars are in line with one another, at a fairly sedate speed, and have their lights and sirens going, and are blaring "back away from the car" over a megaphone. We don't see much of the woman's movements, but it certainly looks like she was moving toward the vehicle when she was hit. Hopefully, more footage will surface that will clarify the situation, but as it stands I really don't see what could have been done differently other than not being in the area at all.

[SalmonGod]

While this is true, based on the video I don't really know what they could have done to prevent it. The two police cars are in line with one another, at a fairly sedate speed, and have their lights and sirens going, and are blaring "back away from the car" over a megaphone. We don't see much of the woman's movements, but it certainly looks like she was moving toward the vehicle when she was hit. Hopefully, more footage will surface that will clarify the situation, but as it stands I really don't see what could have been done differently other than not being in the area at all.

Just watched the video.  Doesn't look the way you're describing it to me.  Camera focuses on the front vehicle, which moves forward very slowly and cautiously.  When the camera turns to the rear vehicle, you can see that a space had built up between the two.  They were not moving together.  The rear vehicle appears to have just begun to move from where it had been stopped when the camera catches it.  Unlike the front vehicle, it moves very suddenly.  In other words, that woman didn't move out in front as the vehicle was moving.  The officer didn't wait for a clear path.

[redwallzyl]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598794433/video-reveals-power-of-sinclair-as-local-news-anchors-recite-script-in-unison

Self explanatory really.

[wierd]

Indeed, you don't say.

Oh, but the US's media is totally free!  Yes--- FREE! A Free Press, that can say whatever they want! No distortion at all, no sir!  A controlled message? Nonsense!/s

[SalmonGod]

No, it's not.  I'm sure Sinclair paid a decent amount of money for it.

[Egan_BW]

I like npr.

[wierd]

I was sarcastically referring to a prior instance of this topic, where I voiced this exact opinion, about this exact thing, and was basically told that I was wrong.

Funny. It's almost as if this is a well rehearsed act from Sinclair or something, and they have been doing it for years...

[Maximum Spin]

In a fundamentally accurate sense, the point of a free press is that the press are free to choose to be bought off if that's what they want. Nobody forced any of those reporters to read that script — they all freely chose to do so. Having a free press does, of course, mean having a press free to act on their baser instincts just as much as their higher ones.

[wierd]

I guess my basic point is that the differences between a plutarch and an autarch are rhetorical at best. A government pushing its agenda is an autarch pulling the strings. A rich bastard who owns the media pushing his agenda is a plutarch pulling the strings. Either way, you have a large amount of public opinion being swayed by a single or very small number of people, for purely personal gain based reasons.

To me, this is ideologically incompatible with the concept of a free press, as it is outlined in the conception of the 4th estate.

The argument that "They are free to read or not read the script" is about as meaningful as:

[in maoist china]
the media is free to read or not read the Party's official statement

In the first case, the media loses its source of funding, and the anchor/journalist gets fired and blacklisted (because the big boss, eg, the owner, was directly gone against, eg-- insubbordination, an act that normally results in instant termination in most industries.), meaning there is defacto coercion to hold the the party line.

In the second case, the media loses the ability to be on the air, and the anchor/journalist goes to jail, (because the big boss, the government that owns everything, was directly gone against, and the insubbordination is considered sedition, because they make the laws) meaning there is defacto coercion to hold the party line.

The degree of severity of penalty for not holding the party line is the only real difference. In either case, it is a career ending move to decide not to obey.

[bloop_bleep]

Y'know, I'm rather surprised that no one has effectively abused that. Shape the electorate through the purchasing of media to fulfill your whims without the need to ever obtain public office. Nothing illegal; just immoral. I'm surprised, especially given how easy it is these days to reach a massive audience; throw enough money at it and I'm sure you could get results.

Or perhaps we have the opposite problem? Like Mr. Burns, we are so filled with individuals throwing money at media to obtain power that, rather than kill us, they've clogged themselves up and allow us to exist in a... well, not exactly a healthy state, but not imminent death either.

Oh I assure you many people have done that.

[Cyroth]

Thats what THEY want you to think.
*starts playing the X-Files theme*

[wierd]

Well, I mean to the extent of obtaining absolute power within the state. People have tried, sure, but I can't think of any who succeeded.

To some degree, "Murdoch + Koch bros" (since their interests often align) have obtained a scary level of success.  I dont want to drink any kind of koolaid here-- however, I must acknowledge their disproportionate ability to sway a large section of the public on matters that concern their respective empires and political leanings, using only money and company ownership as their means of influence.

Do they run the government? No. Do they have enough sway to be a significant threat to government? YES. Do they use that position to effectively lobby, and exert some level of direct control over government? YES.