Legitimate journalism versus yellow journalism

• By Brain Childress Valdosta Chief of Police 
• Apr 19, 2016

Over the past few years, law enforcement in this country has seen an explosion of Internet videos of police and community interactions on websites like YouTube, Facebook and others. Since the inception of such sites, thousands of other websites have sprung up claiming themselves to be news organizations, investigative reporters and fact finders. Now factor in cell phone video cameras and the ability to immediately upload videos and post them, creating instant information and forever ending what many in the media refer to as “a small news market.” Over the past few years, the City of Valdosta and Lowndes County have experienced this revolution with incidents like the Kendrick Johnson death Investigation, the American Flag protest at VSU, the Donald Trump rally, etc. Many of these same “news organizations and investigative reporters” post cell phone videos with racy and sensational headlines which excite the masses, all in an effort to either promote their own website, increase revenue or personal gratification. But is this truly media?
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (spj.org/ethicscode.asp) list several standards which should be exhibited by news organizations to include those who proclaim themselves as journalists. One of those standards is:
• Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
Several years ago I took a Law Enforcement Media Relations Course from Jim Vance of the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. I consider Jim to be an expert on police and media relations and he has shaped the policies of the Valdosta Police Department and my approach to dealing with media and the community. Jim instilled in all of the law enforcement executives attending his classes the importance of integrity, ethics and transparency with the media and the public. He also showed us the importance of open communication, never saying “No Comment” and considering all facts before making statements to the media and public. Most important, Jim also taught us that when you are wrong, you say you are wrong, which builds a sense of trust with the media and community.
But this takes me back to what is real journalism versus “Yellow Journalism.” Journalism to include the profession’s code of ethics is fair and more importantly, accurate information. Yellow Journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers, air time, etc. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.
Recently two separate online videos have surfaced involving the Valdosta Police Department and in both cases, they presented the department in an unfavorable light. To be clear, the department never denied in both cases that some of the facts were accurate. But in both cases, many Internet “journalists” posted their own comments, racy headlines and led many to assume they were reporting all the facts. Then after posting these videos without following any journalistic standards, they contact my department for an official comment after my staff and I received many hate emails suggesting because of two “half” stories, somehow our department is corrupt. In a phone conversation I had with one of these so-called online journalists, I asked him if he was truly a journalist, why didn’t he call me and ask for all facts before writing what he considered a factual story. My response to him was direct but fair: “I don’t deal with media outlets who fail to follow the ethical standards which my employees and I must abide to and acknowledge each year in our department training and accreditation standards.”
But what is becoming even more concerning is that many national media outlets are following suit with the same half-truths to sell air time and newspapers. Then only after increasing their sales do they take the time to get the other side of the story which may or may not make it to their website or papers. Thus enters another Journalistic Standard:
· Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
To the credit of local news organizations in our area such as The Valdosta Daily Times, Valdosta Today, WALB, WCTV, and WTXL, they in my opinion have exhibited what I consider journalistic integrity. Before running any story, they ask for our side to get all facts. All law enforcement in this country asks is for a fair shake like we are expected to provide on an hourly, daily, monthly and annual basis to our citizens. If we do something wrong, we must admit it and reporting it is news worthy and fair. But the officers, deputies, troopers and agents in our communities, protecting us on a daily basis, must receive the same fairness as our citizens. This is something we all should understand when reading information on Facebook, YouTube, etc. Imagine going to trial and not being allowed to defend your position — Is that fair?
Brian Childress
Valdosta Police Department

 http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/opinion/columns/legitimate-journalism-versus-yellow-journalism/article_473bf7ec-c58d-5891-b4ba-d0e89b13d342.html

“Exposing officers and employees to liability for harms committed while at work would expose officers and employees to often ruinous liability simply for doing their jobs,”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/04/19/san-bernardino-proposes-shielding-city-from-damages-in-police-misconduct-cases/?mod=WSJBlog

“Exposing officers and employees to liability for harms committed while at work would expose officers and employees to often ruinous liability simply for doing their jobs,”

Modern Policing an absolute unwillingness to allow anything but complete, unquestioning obedience.

 http://www.qando.net/2013/12/24/insufficiently-servile/
In dealing with the Police, you are expected to respond with the appropriate degree of subservience
Police have the right to complete, unquestioning obedience.

Insufficiently Servile

By Dale Franks

I got a taste of what modern policing has become today—which is to say, an absolute unwillingness to allow anything but complete, unquestioning obedience. Officer Friendly has long since retired, apparently.

For the past fifteen years, I have worked every day on the same very small military installation as a contractor. This morning, as I was approaching the main gate, when I started off after the stoplight, I didn’t shift upshift. So, the Goat was just wailing that sweet V8 growl as I approached the gate. About fifty yards from the gate, I slowed down, rolled down my window, and had my ID outside the car as I approached. Usually, there are civilian DoD police at the gate, but this morning, it was manned by a reservist, a 2nd Class Master at Arms—the Navy’s equivalent to Military Police. We had a brief conversation that went, as nearly as I can remember it like this:

PO2: (Snippy) Are you running late this morning?

Me: No.

(At this point, I could instantly see that my answer displeased him.)

PO2: (Scowling) You need to keep your speed down.

Me: I always observe the speed limits when I’m on the installation.

PO2: (Waving me through) You need to keep your speed down off-base, too.

Me: (Starting to drive away) What happens off-base isn’t your jurisdiction.

I got to my office, turned on my computer, and went into the break area to warm up a couple of delicious whole-wheat Eggos. While I was standing in the kitchen, a uniformed DoD police officer walked in and asked me if I owned the Red GTO. When I said I did, he then asked for my driver’s license. I asked, since I wasn’t operating a motor vehicle, if I was required to show it to him. (In CA, you are not required to do so when not operating a vehicle, nor are you required to show an ID otherwise. It’s different on military bases, of course, in that you are required to show an ID).

When I gave it to him, he then began to tell me how bad my attitude was, and how I should be more respectful of the police, what with them having such a hard job and all. I said that, when it came to respect, maybe the gate guard should’ve been a little less snippy. He said they didn’t need me making smart remarks about their jurisdiction, because they have a close relationship with civilian law enforcement, and he himself, had worked for Atlanta PD for fifteen years. I denied driving at an excessive speed when I approached the gate, said that my comment about jurisdiction was completely valid and that did not have the authority to issue traffic citations off-base, and that if they felt they needed to call CHP to give me a citation, they should do so. Otherwise, he should present me with a citation or arrest me for a military-related offense. Failing that, I was uninterested in further conversation. He seemed a bit upset when he left.

About twenty minutes later, two more DoD policemen came into my office. One of them was the major who serves as the installation’s police chief. They asked to talk to me outside. I told them that, since it appeared that I was the target of some sort of investigation I would refuse to answer any questions without consulting legal council. They asked me to step outside the building and I complied. The major then asked me where I was getting my legal knowledge from, and I replied that I had been an active-duty military policeman for 10 years. They asked for my license, registration and insurance card, and workcenter supervisors. While one officer began to write down my information, the major then told me that as a military policeman I should have a better attitude and be more cooperative. He  then presented a  hypothetical situation about approaching the gate at a high rate of speed. I said, "Hypothetically, I would categorically deny any such allegations". He began to ask me more questions, and I stopped him, saying:

Me: Don’t I have the right to remain silent?

Major: Well, if you are a former MP you should know that Miranda only applies to custodial interviews, not voluntary ones."

Me: So, is this a voluntary interview?

Major: Yes.

Me: So, I’m free to go?

(The major hesitated at this point, probably because both he and I knew what the only correct answer was.)

Major: Yes, you’re free to go.

Me: Then, I think we’re done here.

I retrieved my documentation from the other officer, put it my car, and walked back into the building.

Another twenty minutes passed when two different officers showed up at my office and asked me to come outside. When I did, they presented me with a base traffic ticket for not having my car registered on base. Quite honestly, I didn’t know I was required to, since the Navy no longer issues vehicle decals. We were told that registration was no longer necessary, but apparently the registration regulation is still on the books. The ticket had already been written before the officers approached me. One of them—the officer who had been sent over to speak with me the first time—said, "By direction of the base police chief, I am issuing you a citation for failure to register your vehicle within ten days. You can call the base traffic office if you have any questions." I said, "Wait a second, I haven’t even had my plates for ten days. I just bought the car." He said, "Your registration is dated more than 10 days ago. That’s the date we go by." Then they left.

So, I went to Pass & ID register my car—as well as my motorcycle, which has never been registered either—and they tore up my ticket. Then when I got back to my office, I called to the regional headquarters, and spoke directly with the GS-15 who runs all the local Navy police operations. I explained that I had a brief, snippy conversation with the gate guard, and since then, had been pulled out of my workcenter three separate times by five DoD police officers, and that I felt it was a little excessive, especially considering the chief of police himself had been one of the officers. He said he would take care of it, which, I hope, means he will tell the local police to turn it down from 11.

So, that was my contact with the DoD police today. At every confrontation, they clearly expected me to respond with the appropriate degree of subservience, and were baffled and angered that I refused to do so. So, they couldn’t let it go. They just kept coming back to my office, as if repeated confrontations would make me more, rather than less, servile. And all this for something that wasn’t any sort of criminal offense.

It says a lot—none of it good—that the police seem to have the expectation of unquestioning obedience. It also says a lot that they seem used to getting it, which is our fault, not theirs.

Video-taping police encounters usually results in a rush to judgment by people who have no first-hand information about what transpired.

“Video-taping police encounters usually results in a rush to judgment by people who have no first-hand information about what transpired.  Everyone, including the Police Commissioner, should withhold public comment until all the facts are in."
 http://www.nycpba.org/releases/pr160330-video.html