And now live to our man on the ground...
The news in the UK today has been full of the events leading up to and including the death of Jean Charles Menezes, who was shot in London after the bombings.
Initial reports published by the media suggested that the shooting was justified as Menezes jumped the barriers, was wearing a bulky coat that could hide explosives and failed to respond to verbal commands from the authorities. Now documents leaked from the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) inquiry suggest that the shooting was entirely unwarranted - that we had strolled through the station, stopping to pick up a free newspaper, he was wearing a denim jacket and was restrained before he was shot. They seem to show that the shooting was the result of a suspect identification of the man when he left his flat.
While I think everyone agrees the world would be a better place for this having not happened, what I've noticed is after each and every one of these 'revelations', people (including the media) rush to come to conclusions. The public are now screaming for a public inquiry, based on leaked information from an incomplete inquiry. What happened to gathering all the information and then basing opinions thereon? The IPCC have yet to complete their report, let alone make it public. Calling for a public inquiry only implies that you have no faith in a commission set up to investigate the police but be independent from them (the clue's in the title - INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission). Admittedly based on the leaked documents it does seem almost certain the shooting was a huge mistake and if that is the case then the appropriate people should be punished.
But I'm sick of this culture of leaks in the UK. A leak from some Government department, a leak from this or that commission. This information is not yet in the public interest. I've said in a previous post that 'in the public interest' is not the same as 'interesting to the public'. It only should become public domain once the inquiry is completed. I can't imagine the horror felt by the family finding out this information from the media instead of from the Commission, as if finding it out that way wouldn't be bad enough. And then for the lawyers to jump on the leaks seems callous, even for lawyers. I was very impressed by the head of one of the civil liberties groups who said that everyone should wait for the appropriate information to be reviewed before coming to any conclusions. Usually I would have expected someone in her position of ranting on about the erosion of civil liberties in this country. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised. It's a pity the lawyers couldn't show the same common sense.
So why is the prevailing culture to conclude first and ask questions later? Simple really. People have become used to instant access to information. They (or the media) then make snap-shot conclusions that are based on partial and unsubstantiated 'facts'. It's like stating as a fact that one football team is definitely the winner before the half-time whistle has been blown. And then changing that conclusion at various intervals throughout the rest of the game. It's ridiculous, and I can imagine quite upsetting or frustrating for those actually involved. The news programmes and media outlets are all clamoring to have the next big story out before all the others to satiate this hunger for up-to-the-minute information, seemingly without regard for being able to have a decently researched or accurate or complete story. Then they can say, quite honestly, that the inaccuracies in their stories were a result of them not having all the facts. That's if they're made to answer for the inaccuracies at all. After all, we can't have the freedom of the press challenged just because they're not actually telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What can we (Joe Public) do to counter this trend? All the usual. Stop using the offending outlets, obviously. Will it happen? Of course not. As long as there are enough people who crave the instant access, the inanity will continue. It's like the mob mentality. I remember when some of the less reputable papers in the UK printed names and photos of convicted child molesters. Suddenly mobs formed and people we beaten up and property was vandalized. They deserved it, you might say. Perhaps, but it turned out that several of the names and pictures had been mistakes. How can you rectify that sort of mistake? And will mob mentality learn from this? Certainly not - since the mob mentality isn't based on intellect or reason, but on gut reaction and instinct. So, basically, as long as we crave instant news, as it happens, with full coverage and on the spot comment and react to that instead of a balanced, researched and thought out story containing at least most of the salient facts, we're pretty much screwed as a society. Joy!
My advice? Watch the news. Look at the internet. Read the papers. By all means. But take everything with a pinch of salt. Don't jump on bandwagons, don't join mobs. Make up your own mind using all available information and lots of common sense. And above all, try not to take actions that you wont be able to take back, unless you are absolutely, 99.99% sure you wont have to.
Most of all, realize that nobody knows everything (unless you believe in God, that is) and the likelihood of you always getting both sides of the story from one place is very, very low...
Initial reports published by the media suggested that the shooting was justified as Menezes jumped the barriers, was wearing a bulky coat that could hide explosives and failed to respond to verbal commands from the authorities. Now documents leaked from the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) inquiry suggest that the shooting was entirely unwarranted - that we had strolled through the station, stopping to pick up a free newspaper, he was wearing a denim jacket and was restrained before he was shot. They seem to show that the shooting was the result of a suspect identification of the man when he left his flat.
While I think everyone agrees the world would be a better place for this having not happened, what I've noticed is after each and every one of these 'revelations', people (including the media) rush to come to conclusions. The public are now screaming for a public inquiry, based on leaked information from an incomplete inquiry. What happened to gathering all the information and then basing opinions thereon? The IPCC have yet to complete their report, let alone make it public. Calling for a public inquiry only implies that you have no faith in a commission set up to investigate the police but be independent from them (the clue's in the title - INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission). Admittedly based on the leaked documents it does seem almost certain the shooting was a huge mistake and if that is the case then the appropriate people should be punished.
But I'm sick of this culture of leaks in the UK. A leak from some Government department, a leak from this or that commission. This information is not yet in the public interest. I've said in a previous post that 'in the public interest' is not the same as 'interesting to the public'. It only should become public domain once the inquiry is completed. I can't imagine the horror felt by the family finding out this information from the media instead of from the Commission, as if finding it out that way wouldn't be bad enough. And then for the lawyers to jump on the leaks seems callous, even for lawyers. I was very impressed by the head of one of the civil liberties groups who said that everyone should wait for the appropriate information to be reviewed before coming to any conclusions. Usually I would have expected someone in her position of ranting on about the erosion of civil liberties in this country. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised. It's a pity the lawyers couldn't show the same common sense.
So why is the prevailing culture to conclude first and ask questions later? Simple really. People have become used to instant access to information. They (or the media) then make snap-shot conclusions that are based on partial and unsubstantiated 'facts'. It's like stating as a fact that one football team is definitely the winner before the half-time whistle has been blown. And then changing that conclusion at various intervals throughout the rest of the game. It's ridiculous, and I can imagine quite upsetting or frustrating for those actually involved. The news programmes and media outlets are all clamoring to have the next big story out before all the others to satiate this hunger for up-to-the-minute information, seemingly without regard for being able to have a decently researched or accurate or complete story. Then they can say, quite honestly, that the inaccuracies in their stories were a result of them not having all the facts. That's if they're made to answer for the inaccuracies at all. After all, we can't have the freedom of the press challenged just because they're not actually telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What can we (Joe Public) do to counter this trend? All the usual. Stop using the offending outlets, obviously. Will it happen? Of course not. As long as there are enough people who crave the instant access, the inanity will continue. It's like the mob mentality. I remember when some of the less reputable papers in the UK printed names and photos of convicted child molesters. Suddenly mobs formed and people we beaten up and property was vandalized. They deserved it, you might say. Perhaps, but it turned out that several of the names and pictures had been mistakes. How can you rectify that sort of mistake? And will mob mentality learn from this? Certainly not - since the mob mentality isn't based on intellect or reason, but on gut reaction and instinct. So, basically, as long as we crave instant news, as it happens, with full coverage and on the spot comment and react to that instead of a balanced, researched and thought out story containing at least most of the salient facts, we're pretty much screwed as a society. Joy!
My advice? Watch the news. Look at the internet. Read the papers. By all means. But take everything with a pinch of salt. Don't jump on bandwagons, don't join mobs. Make up your own mind using all available information and lots of common sense. And above all, try not to take actions that you wont be able to take back, unless you are absolutely, 99.99% sure you wont have to.
Most of all, realize that nobody knows everything (unless you believe in God, that is) and the likelihood of you always getting both sides of the story from one place is very, very low...
posted by Rob Langley at 9:24 pm
2 Comments:
All very interesting points.
As a journalist, that's what I try to present. All sides.
But can this really and truly be done? I guess it matters what side we work for. Is the station you work for liberal? Conservative? Pro-this, anti-that?
We're all supposed to be opposed to 'evil' of some sort. Then why is Bin Laden labelled as a terrorist but U-S President George W. Bush is NOT (when clearly he is)?
Thanks for visiting my blog. I'll stop by again!
I guess I see the problem in terms of news as a commodity to be sold, rather than a process of enlightenment. I don't know that it has ever been any other way, but news shouldn't be sexy, it should be news-worthy. But the most informative news would most likely also be the most boring, so less popular with 'Joe Public'.
I'm not sure how this stacks up with freelance journalism - whether because a writer doesn't belong to an outlet, they get to present a more in depth, balanced view (which then could get edited by the outlet).
The darker side of Capitalism, I guess, is that people do things for money rather than for the sake of doing them, and competition doesn't always bring out the best...
Post a Comment
<< Home