Limping ethics of the media

by Student Sun Aug 31, 2008 22:42

Read your article with interest, thankyou.
But what I found equally disturbing, on following your link, is that the police have requested that the Press pixellate out firearms officer's faces to keep them anonymous.

And this seems to have been met with a positive response from the Press.

Is this the thin edge of the wedge, and can we soon look forward to the spectacle of baton wielding balaclava clad police brutality at demonstrations?

Police brutality was bad enough at the lawful, "protest against G W Bush's visit", in London recently. It was a disturbing spectacle to see our "upholders of the law" protecting a war criminal, and lashing out at peaceful demonstrators with batons.

I hate to think how much more violently those brutal police officers would act without fear of exposure.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&s...1&c=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9gUkXaW2HQ&feature=related

by Iqbal Tamimi - Bristol NUJ member Mon Sep 01, 2008 04:39 iqbasl at yahoo dot com Bristol 07947650061

I guess the published story mentioned in your link talks about a number of photographers who agreed on hiding the identity of some...NOT ALL.
Such important debate is supposed to be discussed in detail with all concerned parties and the NJU should come up with a united point of view regarding this matter.
If we want the media to play a positive role, there are few sacrificies that should be expected. The journalists ..photographers colleagues and reporters face a great deal of risks themselves every day during work, why should they be the ones who should withdrew and retreat to the back line or produce a less perfect job just for the sake of meeting requests of a certain number of people working in another profession .
Every job comes with its own risks, every one should be willing to take some of such risks should we want to improve the outcome of a collective job, and end up with a safer society.
As much as the police unions try to protect their members, or the fire fighters, or teachers, or medical staff....also the journalists unionists are willing to defend and back up their colleagues in an attempt of offering the best performance,and delivering the most professional results.
When journalists make a mistake, or produce a less than 100% perfect job NO ONE would have mercy on them, including ourselves members of the same profession.

by Gopher Mon Sep 01, 2008 07:32

I take it as journalists you would wish to protect your "source" of any story you research. That to my mind would be the correct thing to do as long as you check out that source.

So tell me how is it different to "obscure" the reference to a legitimate informant from obscuring a policeman’s face in a picture because he is in the specialist firearms unit?

These highly trained individuals can of course still make mistakes - but when they do the IPCC always looks at the circumstances purely because a firearm has been used.

Best not to get too hysterical here.

by Iqbal Tamimi Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:05 iqbasl at yahoo dot com Bristol 07947650061

No body is immune against making mistakes. I only represent one voice... myself; I am sharing my views as an individual working in the media. But such important issues can’t be handled by one person’s point of view. There are many things I might not know of regarding risking other people’s safety. This is why I suggested that we should have a debate shared by representatives of all the parties concerned, abiding to the ethics of such professions, and the general collective outcome for the good of the society.
If such debate was not settled, we will keep going in circles because the journalists would feel it is not fair to force them to present amputated assignments, and the people who are working in the safety professions might not share with us what they know to help us understand their point of view.
One can’t build a platform for a certain rule on few incidents only. It is more like when you have an experiment or a research, the outcome can’t be classified as being valid reference or significant without calculations, and deviation statistics. We need more information released to understand why we should or should not do something claimed to harm others.
By the way.. I do not go ‘hysterical’ when I defend an idea... I would replace hysterical by ‘passionate’...;) this is how I feel about debates concerning ethics of my profession which I do respect very much.

by Student Tue Sep 02, 2008 08:25

Gopher said:-
"So tell me how is it different to "obscure" the reference to a legitimate informant from obscuring a policeman’s face in a picture because he is in the specialist firearms unit?"

Gopher's claimed inability to see the difference between a policeman whose CHOSEN implement is the gun, and an informant who uses a pen, is a chilling example of the type of mentality and spin that is destroying our society. Gopher, I just hope you're not a member of the IPCC.

Remember the police/press connivance in the case of the Jean Charles de Meneses shooting? The first thing we were told by the media was that Jean Charles de Meneses was wearing bulky clothes capable of concealing a bomb, that he vaulted the barrier of the Underground, and that he dashed to board a train - where an heroic Firearms Officer pumped eight bullets into him to stop him blowing up the train.

We only learned the truth thanks to eyewitness informants who should be allowed to keep their anonymity.

The truth was that Jean Charles de Meneses was wearing his everyday electricians light work clothing, that he was walking normally through London underground, that he even bought a newspaper, and that he boarded the train like anyone else. The only true part of the story was that the police filled him with bullets.

Anonymity for police marksmen? No thank you.

by Iqbal Tamimi - NUJ member in Bristol Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:43 iqbasl at yahoo dot com Bristol 07947650061

I guess I want to share with you the following article. It is the point of view of a teenager about this debate.It was an essay for school debating in New Zealnd. It was an answer for the following question:

“If there was one thing you'd change about how policing is done in New Zealand, what would that be, and why?”

The answer was written by Jehan Casinader, Year 13, Hutt International Boys’ School, Upper Hutt ... and this is what he said:

Batons, blood, bureaucracy and the blue line. We knew it was disgraceful, and we knew we were divided. We didn’t realise, however, that the events of the infamous Springbok rugby tour marked the beginning of the end of public confidence in the force. The moment the riot masks and shields came down, obscuring the faces of the police, we could no longer recognise them or read their expressions. Therefore, we could not place our trust in them. Now, over two decades later, survey data presents the monumental challenge of restoring that confidence. Genuine efforts appear fruitless, though, because a key element is missing: the human face of the police. If there is to be any single change, it is that we must humanise the force by giving it a face, a persona and a demeanour.

The public no longer knows the face of the police, nor its expressions of stability and protection. Rather, the public only knows an institution, an authority, an establishment. Police are now considered robots, programmed to enforce the law. This perception has created the unfortunate and unreasonable expectation that our police will be perfect and flawless; an impossibility given that, as in any organisation, there are those who will compromise the integrity of their vocation. The advent of more accessible media, and blogs dedicated to holding the police to account, mean that police are perhaps under the spotlight more often than they once were, because of our loss of trust. The problem, however, is rectifiable. Three key steps will help to restore the human face of the police.

Firstly, police officers must be able to speak freely to the media. Shoddy reporting is commonly blamed for the public relations problems the police are currently facing, but the blame game will not solve it. The solution is not to shield ordinary officers from the microphones and cameras. Rather, they must be encouraged to front more often. For many people, the only contact they have with the police is through the evening news. They want to hear local police discussing their experiences and their explanations for local issues. This cannot be achieved by simply channelling comment through spokespeople who spend their days behind desks, not in the field. Promoting the voices of ordinary police will naturally help strengthen the credibility of the force and its work on a daily basis. It will also show that police management trust their staff with their organisation’s viewpoints, and will not remove their staff from those they serve in the name of ‘separation of duties’. Professor Richard Weinblatt observes, "The steely-faced, terse 'no comment' in police media relations is dead". It is clear that the public’s self-declared 'right to know' can be satisfied by ordinary officers, without jeopardising the integrity of police business.

The second step in restoring the human face of the police is promoting police involvement in the community. As our population grows and spreads, it is easy to resort to nationwide initiatives which are often more efficient and simple than regionally- or locally-based initiatives. This efficiency, however, compromises the police’s local community links which are fundamental to retaining a ‘personal’ presence. Youth are introduced to the police at an early age through programmes like DARE and the School Traffic Safety Teams, but this tends to diminish quickly. Events like the Bluelight Discos appear to be things of the past. The relationship between youth and the police is strained by issues like boy racing. If police are to be seen as more than ‘party poopers’ to young people, they need to work at innovative ways to promote strong relationships with tomorrow’s leaders. On an employment level, attempts to modernise young people’s views of the force are unnecessary. Instead, ironically, the police must promote its roots. Youth are more likely to join the police because of ‘old-fashioned’ ideals like bravery and a sense of community, rather than because it will give them ‘better work stories’, which is trivial and self-serving.

Finally, encouraging police to show emotion is critical to humanising the force. Some of the most striking images from police history are from moments officers were so vulnerable they could not preserve their rugged exterior, such as the New York and London bombings. It should not take a crisis to engender that unguarded humanity in our officers, because it shows strength, not weakness. In their normality we find security. Officers must also be able to make public apologies when appropriate, rather than attempting to divert attention. Because the police are in a unique stewardship role, corporate strategies for public relations do not necessarily work. Rather than attempting to ‘minimise publicity damage and fallout’, police must front up and acknowledge errors. The public view of the police will be better, not worse, for it. Similarly, officers must be encouraged to take credit when credit is due; successes must be celebrated. Programmes like Youth Aid are effective but not widely acknowledged.

By overanalysing, we will complicate the situation. Quite simply, the relationship between the police and the public is built on trust. The need to restore a human face to the police is not about taxpayer-funded research, structural mechanisms, resourcing or efficiency. It is about giving ordinary police a public voice, fostering a community presence, and allowing police to show emotion. Those ideals are not new, and they do not require organisational changes. Rather, they require attitudinal changes that can be achieved if modelled from the top. Our police force is not in crisis, especially in comparison to other countries which face more serious issues of corruption, credibility, custodial violence and abuse. But it is time to restore the human face of the police; a face that has been hidden behind a mask of officialdom for years, but has certainly not been lost behind that mask.

An example from Canada

by Student Thu Sep 11, 2008 07:48

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23552726...+wasn't+aiming+at+police+when+they+shot+him+says+mother/article.do

And balaclavas.

A shotgun? A most ineffective weapon at any distance, if it's loaded with dust shot, at 30 yards your arse might sting a bit .

So much talent destroyed by moronic brute force, clearly here was a distressed man at the end of his tether.

He was also a territorial soldier who had served in Iraq.

Well, he found a certain and easy way to commit suicide, job eagerly done for you by our caring society.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3...2.ece

by Student Thu Sep 11, 2008 08:19

Sorry, the link failed.

Here's the image that accompanied the article in the Evening Standard, "Mark wasn't aiming at police when they shot him says mother".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23552726...+wasn't+aiming+at+police+when+they+shot+him+says+mother/article.do

Pixels and balaclavas at the shooting of Mark Saunders

by popeye Fri Sep 12, 2008 06:29

when they blocked his face they forgot to airbrush his arm second cop from left covered with body art

by Student Tue Sep 23, 2008 08:41

Jean Charles de Meneses.

Having spun us the invasion of Iraq, the BBC is stuck in a groove.

The inquest into the police shooting of Jean Charles de Meneses has finally got underway after three years of obfuscation and procrastination, but the BBC persists in spinning their story right to the bitter end.

Both main news reports I listened to yesterday, the BBC stated that police marksmen CHASED Jean Charles de Meneses into Stockwell underground.

This is a lie, to give us the impression that Jean Charles was running away from the police. To cloud the truth and to create some false justification for the shooting of an innocent man.

Come on the BBC, after Iraq we've learnt to see through your sneaky little subversions of truth and justice.