Meet the Press engaged in a bit of counter-factual speculation this morning. It produced a video to demonstrate what the coverage of the Walter Scott shooting would have looked like if a bystander had not caught it on video.
(This is my workaround for the limitations on embedding videos into Word Press. If you click on the screen cap above it should take you to the segment content, which you can then play.)
What struck me about this segment was how the media organization that produced it seemed to dismiss out of hand the idea that they could have done some independent reporting. The video represents “how television would have been stuck covering the story with no video…and it had to rely entirely from information from the North Charleston police department.”
I was struck by how little self-reflection there seemed to be on the role of journalists in facilitating a culture in which police shootings of civilians have been largely unscrutinized and rarely prosecuted. If police departments have sometimes made official statements with more concern for public relations than truth creating an environment of mistrust between police and the communities they serve, and if this has been the case for years, then surely the media, in not digging into the facts, deserves some share of the blame.
For almost six minutes the panel discusses the mis-information that was officially released by the police department as if there were only two possible options for a news organization– relying entirely on official and perhaps biased accounts or hoping a citizen will come forward with a shaky Iphone video. The panel seems to be in agreement that the only way the public can know what happens with police is to put body cameras on them. Only David Brooks near the very end of the segment suggests that it is incumbent upon journalists to independently verify reports from official sources. He expresses hope that the media would have done its job in this case. Given how little soul searching “the press” seem to have done on this program, I am skeptical that this would have been the case.
We are starting to have an important conversation about poverty, authority, policing and race. But there is an important element of his story that I think deserves a great deal more discussion. In an article last month The Guardian lamented what it called “the slow death of the great American newsroom” in an article that opened like this:
In the past decade, as a percentage, more print journalists have lost their jobs than workers in any other significant American industry. (That bad news is felt just as keenly in Britain where a third of editorial jobs in newspapers have been lost since 2001.) The worst of the cuts, on both sides of the Atlantic, have fallen on larger local daily papers at what Americans call metro titles. A dozen historic papers have disappeared entirely in the US since 2007, and many more are ghost versions of what they used to be, weekly rather than daily, freesheets rather than broadsheets, without the resources required to hold city halls to account or give citizens a trusted vantage on their community and the world.
For a decade or more we have been laying off all of the watchdogs and making professional news into an increasingly entertainment-driven medium. If TV news would have been “stuck” covering the story with only police reports it is because we’ve dismantled the means by which we could question those accounts.