posting
04-27-2006, 02:01 PM
Kingston police vs media by I.M. Pertinent
That's some battle brewing between the police and the Whig-Standard. Evidently, a few weeks ago, the cops changed their radio system and now the media, accustomed to getting the same radio reports as police officers on the street, can't listen in. Which means the media don't know where the cops are and can't get live pictures and stories at the crime scene.
Whig editor Christina Spencer argues it is the right and duty of her paper to report on police incidents as they are happening. Moreover, Ms Spencer says the paper has an obligation to the public to act as a watchdog and hold taxpayer funded agencies to account. For its part, the police, in essence, say they have the right to give the media the information they decide the media should have when they decide the media should have it.
So who's right?
Well obviously not the police. Allowing police, or any government body, to decide for themselves what the public is entitled to know is a very dangerous game. The media provide the scrutiny necessary to ensure police and other public bodies are acting in the best interests of citizens without overstepping their considerable powers. (See Middle East for one example of what happens when governments control the information flow)
The police, other than making it clear they don't much like the Whig, present no solid rationale for keeping the media out of the information loop. Their argument that officer safety is at stake is specious, at best. How is an officer's life in danger because Whig photographers, who have attended crimes scenes for decades, know where the crime scene is today?
Deputy Chief Dan Murphy's comments (in the Whig) raise questions about whether this new $250,000 radio encryptor is even necessary or whether the police simply capitalized on an opportunity to carry out petty vengeances against the newspaper for unfavourable articles. That, more than anything, is why the public needs the media to win this battle. The police must not be allowed to withhold negative information and provide only positive spin in order to look good in the news.
And with respect to Mr. Murphy's comment: "We are accountable to the public we serve . we are not accountable to the print media." Clearly, Mr. Murphy is in desperate need of communications advice as well as a refresher course in liberal democracy. Yes, Mr. Murphy, you certainly are accountable to the news media because it is the news media that holds you accountable to the public you serve. How else is an ordinary citizen going to know what the police force is up to?
Nonetheless, Mr. Murphy indirectly raises a good point about the Whig's seeming altruism. It's no big secret that a great disaster shot sells the greatest number of newspapers, so the Whig's interest in police reports goes beyond responsibility and accountability to the public. The Whig's ability to sell papers and its bottom line will no doubt suffer from a police news blackout.
The Whig's watchdog argument is also a little phony given the newspaper's notable lack of scrutiny of publicly funded agencies in general. When's the last time we read a story detailing the activities and expenditures of the housing authority or the conservation authority? And what about the millions taxpayers have shoveled into KEDCO over the past few years? How about holding someone to account for that pork barrel?
Though we should never allow the police to dictate what the media reports, maybe the silver lining here is that a lack of police stories might prompt the Whig to provide greater depth and analysis on matters that are much more vital to citizens than yesterday's traffic accident. Who knows, maybe they'll even devote some ink to publicly funded agencies.
That's some battle brewing between the police and the Whig-Standard. Evidently, a few weeks ago, the cops changed their radio system and now the media, accustomed to getting the same radio reports as police officers on the street, can't listen in. Which means the media don't know where the cops are and can't get live pictures and stories at the crime scene.
Whig editor Christina Spencer argues it is the right and duty of her paper to report on police incidents as they are happening. Moreover, Ms Spencer says the paper has an obligation to the public to act as a watchdog and hold taxpayer funded agencies to account. For its part, the police, in essence, say they have the right to give the media the information they decide the media should have when they decide the media should have it.
So who's right?
Well obviously not the police. Allowing police, or any government body, to decide for themselves what the public is entitled to know is a very dangerous game. The media provide the scrutiny necessary to ensure police and other public bodies are acting in the best interests of citizens without overstepping their considerable powers. (See Middle East for one example of what happens when governments control the information flow)
The police, other than making it clear they don't much like the Whig, present no solid rationale for keeping the media out of the information loop. Their argument that officer safety is at stake is specious, at best. How is an officer's life in danger because Whig photographers, who have attended crimes scenes for decades, know where the crime scene is today?
Deputy Chief Dan Murphy's comments (in the Whig) raise questions about whether this new $250,000 radio encryptor is even necessary or whether the police simply capitalized on an opportunity to carry out petty vengeances against the newspaper for unfavourable articles. That, more than anything, is why the public needs the media to win this battle. The police must not be allowed to withhold negative information and provide only positive spin in order to look good in the news.
And with respect to Mr. Murphy's comment: "We are accountable to the public we serve . we are not accountable to the print media." Clearly, Mr. Murphy is in desperate need of communications advice as well as a refresher course in liberal democracy. Yes, Mr. Murphy, you certainly are accountable to the news media because it is the news media that holds you accountable to the public you serve. How else is an ordinary citizen going to know what the police force is up to?
Nonetheless, Mr. Murphy indirectly raises a good point about the Whig's seeming altruism. It's no big secret that a great disaster shot sells the greatest number of newspapers, so the Whig's interest in police reports goes beyond responsibility and accountability to the public. The Whig's ability to sell papers and its bottom line will no doubt suffer from a police news blackout.
The Whig's watchdog argument is also a little phony given the newspaper's notable lack of scrutiny of publicly funded agencies in general. When's the last time we read a story detailing the activities and expenditures of the housing authority or the conservation authority? And what about the millions taxpayers have shoveled into KEDCO over the past few years? How about holding someone to account for that pork barrel?
Though we should never allow the police to dictate what the media reports, maybe the silver lining here is that a lack of police stories might prompt the Whig to provide greater depth and analysis on matters that are much more vital to citizens than yesterday's traffic accident. Who knows, maybe they'll even devote some ink to publicly funded agencies.