This week's LEO bloopers (March 14-20, 2010)

[jimlongley]

Sure, and I'll give you Jason Blair for free and not mention Jeff Gannon (oops, sorry).

There are bad apples in every profession. Most organizations, including the police, find them and get rid of them. The fact that individuals are imperfect doesn't condemn the entire profession.

- Jim

No, but it does show that the possibility exists. All I wanted to do was come up with "something" less than seventy years old, and that was easy.

[ELB]

Can you come up with something that happened less than 70 years ago?

- Jim

Oh, try Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan, Adnan Hajj, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, ... it is really not hard to find dishonest mainstream journalism, which is my point. I just did not have time when I first read to the post to elaborate. Duranty makes a good example, and btw he is a current example (elaborated on below).

Yes the NYT's Judith Miller did eventually get flogged by the NYT and others...because her sins of not "independently assessing" reports were perceived to help the Bush Administration, being too close to the administration, etc making her a shill. Would that the NYT be so fastidious with their environmental reporter, Andy Rivkin, and his Climate Change pals. Don't hold your breath.

Duranty IS a current example, it just happens to have started close to 70 years ago, extending clear into this century. The NYT and the Pulitzer people, (and the MSM in general) have refused to acknowledge that he was a willing shill for the Soviets. The Pulitzer committee finally clucked its tongue a bit, harrumphed, and then ducked the issue by deciding that his articles could not be judged by today's standard. Sure.

Your reply about bad apples I take to mean that there are a "few." I do not believe this is the case for the traditional news business, it is largely shot through with people whose basic outlook is that not only should their writing and reporting support their political views, but that any other views should be suppressed -- hence Howard Raines' frothing at the mouth about Ailes and Fox News, and the "War on Fox". The coverage of any major issue, from the Iraq War to the Second Amendment, from Global Coldening/Warmening/Change/Whatever to Obama's actual record to Health Care "Reform," is not just unconscious bias but deliberate propaganda. My shot about the Duranty Pulitzer is not out of date -- it just shows that leftist propaganda as news has been trundling along for a long time. Last night we got one of the intended outcomes of that effort -- the Democratic Party finally succeeded in officially turning America into a socialist state.

Thank God for blogs and the internet -- it has helped counter the MSM stranglehold on the news, and with people catching on, the MSM is going bankrupt, a well deserved fate (unless, of course Obama's next "stimulus" is to prop them up a few more years).

The point of all this is that the news business is not basically OK with a few bad apples; it is thoroughly corrupt with few good apples, and those apples are unlikely to receive any prizes unless they toe the correct ideological line. Dumping on cops nearly always meets that criteria, unless of course it involves "Nifonging" some "privileged" boys.

As far as law enforcement goes, I think there are more than a few bad apples, and there are some serious systemic problems in the policing field, and they need to be exposed and dealt with. However, I also think the integrity quotient of law enforcement far exceeds that of the journalism business.

[seamusTX]

I have two questions:

• How would you compare the current level of journalistic and police integrity to the situation that existed in 1890 to 1930?
• Do you have any achievable recommendations for improving the current situation?

- Jim

[jimlongley]

I have two questions:

• How would you compare the current level of journalistic and police integrity to the situation that existed in 1890 to 1930?
• Do you have any achievable recommendations for improving the current situation?

- Jim

1 - Not very different in journalism, they are self enabled and hide behind constitutional protection even when they are very wrong.
- some different in police, but even today one can come up with examples of a lack of integrity that boggles the mind.

2 - No, but there are people much smarter than me who could contribute.

One of the problems is the "Blue Wall" - cops don't snitch on cops, reporters don't snitch on reporters. Self regulation is problematic, and that is what we trust the media and the police to do. When oversight is implemented, it is viewed as intrusive, spying, amateurs telling professionals what to do, and a variety of other things.

A small but relevant example from personal experience: I was a TSA "Agent" for several years and was there almost from the beginning. The whole thing was put together in a big hurry and organized along somewhat military lines. There was supposed to be an internal organization to investigate and correct abuses within the organization, but reports of superiors violating procedure, harassment, and even possible criminal activity, were often "investigated" by asking the parties involved if they were involved, and sometimes resulted in threats against the persons doing the reporting, whistle blower laws not withstanding.

A supervisor arrived at work late almost daily, and left work early; had a "clique" of buddies who were accorded special privileges, sometimes leaving the site for long lunches which probably involved consumption of alcohol; openly participated in questionable activities that some felt were sexual harassment, and more.

I, personally, objected to a situation and tried to get my direct supervisor to do something about it, but was rebuffed. So I filed a report skipping the chain of command, which was within our published policies.

I was summarily called up in front of a manager several levels above my pay grade, informed that I could be terminated for doing what I had, that he had "personally" investigated my "allegation" and had found it to be "vague" and "insubstantive" and uncorroborated by my listed witnesses. Conversations with some of those people later revealed that each had been told they were being investigated for mutiny and they had better be right or they were facing felony jail time, causing some to recant or at least reduce their part of the complaint.

TSA solved the issue about the supervisor arriving late, taking long lunches, and leaving early while falsifying the sign in log by: separating the supervisory sign in log to somewhere that the rest of us can't see it.

That's just one example, there are others, and there is no reason to think that the media or police fare much better.

[The Annoyed Man]

Here is a suggestion that might change the landscape of reporting for the better...

In some kinds of financial reporting, the reporter is required by the SEC to inform the reader if he/she owns any stock in the company on which he/she is reporting. Then the reader has the opportunity to decide for themselves if the reporting is influenced by the reporter's vested interest in the story.

Since journalistic impartiality is a myth (on both sides of the aisle), I believe that journalistic standards taught at journalism schools ought to require reporters to reveal their party affiliation whenever they report on political matters, instead of teaching the myth of impartiality to which nobody pays any attention. It needs to be nothing more than an italicized remark in parentheses at the bottom of an article stating "(Mr./Ms. Doe is a registered member of the X party.)."

That simple sentence at the bottom of any article on political reporting would do more to force impartiality accountability on the reporters than any ethics taught in J-school. And by not making it a legal requirement but instead an ethical one, then we can automatically discount any article that does not have that tagline as fraudulent reporting and ignore it. In fact, we can then leave it to the blogosphere - both left and right - to point out the unethical omissions.

I worked in a major city newspaper newsroom for 9 years. Registered independents in the newsroom are as rare as registered republicans, so I know for a certain fact that claims to the contrary are a bald-faced lie. It would not stretch truth to say that 80% or more of reporters are democrats. As democrats, they have a vested interest in reporting the world as they see it through their democrat paradigm. That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with slanted reporting. Heck, I'm slanted. What I have a problem with is the passing off of that reporting as impartial when it is patently not so by any objective standard.

So, require political reporters to reveal their party affiliation at all times, or be known as a fraud who is not to be trusted. Then, readers can still read a broad array of reporting (we all should) representing different viewpoints and come to their own conclusions about what is truth, but they will be doing so from an informed position.

I just don't see any other way to restore respectability to the profession.

[seamusTX]

Since journalistic impartiality is a myth (on both sides of the aisle), I believe that journalistic standards taught at journalism schools ought to require reporters to reveal their party affiliation whenever they report on political matters, ...

Keeping in mind the fact that this thread is about police misconduct, does one political party approve or disapprove of police misconduct more than another?

How about disclosing sex, race, religion, citizenship, and national origin? All these personal characteristics can lead to bias.

(The sex of reporters in not always obvious from their names. Some use initials, and some use ambiguous names like Chris.)

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

(The sex of reporters in not always obvious from their names. Some use initials, and some use ambiguous names like Chris.)

- Jim

You're saying I'm sexually ambiguous?

My comment was not so much to the thread topic as it was to above complaints about reportage. Sorry for the thread hijack. It was unintended.

[seamusTX]

I think Man is clear enough.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

March 2010, New Orleans: A former police officer was charged with conspiracy for covering up police shooting of unarmed people after Hurricane Katrina:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... wD9ECLSC00
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25orleans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One former and one current New Orleans officer who had been found guilty in federal court were sentenced to 25 and 17 years in the slammer yesterday:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/katrina_033111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/p ... 033111.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wbir.com/news/article/164297 ... urder-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was a very complicated case. I cannot do justice to the details.

- Jim

[baldeagle]

Can you come up with something that happened less than 70 years ago?

- Jim

Dan Rather, 2004.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Can you come up with something that happened less than 70 years ago?

- Jim

Dan Rather, 2004.

What is really sad about that is, unless something I don't know about has happened, he still believes he was given good information instead of the "created" information it was proven to be.

[srothstein]

We also have multiple levels of checks and balances:

• Local police can be investigated by sheriffs and DAs.
• County officials can be investigated by state police and the attorney general.
• The state police are answerable to the governor and legislators.
• The federal Justice Department can investigate everybody.
• Federal law enforcement is answerable to Congress.
• Civilians can sue officials in federal courts.
• News media can investigate and stir up public opinion, which elected officials respond to.

It's not a perfect system, but no system is. It's a lot better than countries that have national police forces and prosecutors and courts that are not independent.

Add to the list that, in Texas at least, the local police can also investigate the county or state officials. And Travis County DA can investigate almost any political official in the state, for mos official type crimes.

And most importantly, thanks to Lon Horiuchi, state officials can investigate and prosecute federal officials for violations of state laws committed while on duty. The local DA indicted him for murder and fought it all the way up, SCOTUS ruled that way, and then the replacement DA decided to drop the charges after SCOTUS made the ruling.

And I also wanted to agree that this system has flaws, but it is the best system I have seen yet. I am open to suggestions on how to improve it.

And if anyone is curious, there is a bill (HB 1470 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 01470I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) to create a state civilian review board to investigate complaints of abuse of authority or excessive force by any peace officer in the state. I have some problems with this bill, so I have not decided yet if it is a good thing or not. It definitely has the potential to go either way.

[seamusTX]

In theory "civilian" review boards offer a non-LEO point of view on incidents. However, these boards either can be packed with compliant people or dominated by someone with a chip on his or her shoulder.

Ultimately juries are the civilian review boards. All homicides go before grand juries, and some non-homicide use-of-force incidents without charges.

- Jim

[gigag04]

Civilian review boards are tough. Judging someone's actions without having BTDT can get tricky.

[srothstein]

Both of you caught one problem, the other problem is that there is no real disciplinary authority. They can report the conclusion to the department and if the department refuses to do something, they can report it to the local DA.

My fixes to the bill would be to have the board be half and half officers and non-LEOs. Make the officer ranks include some patrolman or detective and some front line supervisor as well as some management ranks say two patrolman, one sergeant, one rank of lieutenant or above and then five non-LEOs. Then I would also provide for it to report the agencies to TCLEOSE and also the incident to AG if the local DA refuses charges. If a mixed rank board like that feels there is something wrong, there probably is and it really needs punishment. That means you might need to get it out of the local area/government to get the problem fixed. For example, i cannot see the DA in Bexar County doing something if the San Antonio police chief refuses and asks him not too.