Paper That Couldn't Be Bothered To Report On Local Police Misconduct Fires Off Editorial Insulting Writer Who Actually Did
from the unearned-superiority dept
As we recently covered here, a few Aiken, South Carolina, police officers engaged in a steady procession of Constitutional violations during a traffic stop predicated on nothing more than a (fully legal) temporary plate. Shirts were lifted and breasts exposed. At least one cop spent a considerable amount of time probing the passenger's anus. For all intents and purposes, it was a roadside raping, performed under the color of law.
The horrific traffic stop is the focus of a federal lawsuit… and a whole lot of belated scrambling by law enforcement and city officials. Radley Balko of the Washington Post, who broke the story, found himself on the receiving end of a sneering, condescending editorial by the Aiken Standard -- the local paper which had no interest in covering the lawsuit until after national internet hellfire began raining down on the town it serves.
The editorial is worth reading all the way through, if only to experience the surreality of being talked down to by an editor who wouldn't know unbiased journalism if it showed up at his desk wearing a blue uniform and told him to kill an unflattering story.
First, the editorial -- even as it throws shade at Balko for being a mere "blogger" -- acknowledges that it didn't even pick up on this story until after it had been covered at Balko's Washington Post blog. From that point, it only gets worse. These three sentences are enough to give you some idea of how underqualified the Aiken Standard editorial staff is to be entering into a heated debate over journalistic priorities or law enforcement misconduct. (It also must be noted that the paper feels perfectly fine criticizing Balko's blogging while not providing readers a link to his post so its readers can view the source material for themselves.)
We’re not criticizing the blog writer’s assertions since we are as ardent protectors of the First Amendment as is The Washington Post.First off, the First Amendment not only protects criticism, it practically demands it. This editorial -- as horrendous and misguided as it is -- is the "more speech" the First Amendment encourages. If you don't like something someone wrote, write something of your own rebutting it. There's no need to pretend the First Amendment is there to saddle up your High Horse and act as your squire during your trip down the High Road. And, for that matter, the editorial does criticize Balko's assertions, along with taking cheap shots at his lowly blogger status (for the Bezos-owned paper serving one of the nation's largest subscriber bases).
Our point is that The Washington Post blog was rooted in opinion, which is how the blog should be regarded. It’s not a news story conveying information from a neutral perspective. The incident also didn’t happen last week or even last month. It happened 17 months ago.
As for the Aiken Standard being concerned about "neutral perspectives," it would have been nice for it to have any perspective at all prior to a mere "blogger" making public news that it should not only already have known about, but should have addressed in print months ago.
Even stupider is the idea that horrific violations have some sort of expiration date. Lawsuits take time -- generally being the tail end of a process in which other, less expensive options are exhausted first. Just because it didn't happen within the last week doesn't mean it's not worthy of coverage. But that's apparently the Aiken Standard's standard.
Towards the end of its piece, it takes time to thank law enforcement for the hard work they do when not violating citizens' rights.
Police officers face danger every day. They’re not perfect, but they lay their lives on the line every day so we can be safe.For a paper making the claim that "opinions" from "bloggers" are worth less than its "neutral" reporting that allows "every stakeholder" to have their say, it sure sounds like the Aiken Standard is issuing absolution before all the facts are in.
Ken White at Popehat responded to the Aiken Standard's blog-slamming editorial with an opinionated blog post of his own. Again, his is worth reading all the way through, but for much different reasons than the Aiken Standard's. He calls the paper out for claiming to be the arbiter of neutrality and civility with two paragraphs that should serve as a stinging rebuke for every reporter granting law enforcement officials vast amounts of deference while still claiming to be a member of the Fourth Estate.
Civility is a good thing, even when discussing controversial subjects. It's a goal I often fall short of, but a goal nonetheless. Civility even on heated subjects is a good thing because of humility: we may be wrong about the things we are angriest about. It's a good thing because of proportionality: our sense of what is outrageous enough to provoke incivility may be idiosyncratic. It's a good thing because of perspective: the world is full of people ready to be uncivil to us about things we have every damn right to do, and if we encourage incivility we'll get what we ask for.Balko's response to the Aiken Standard editorial is just as damning, but his closing paragraph really nails everything the Aiken Standard got wrong when it started believing subservience to law enforcement was the same thing as "neutral reporting." If you want to sling arrows of journalistic superiority, you'd best have your shit nailed down tight.
[...]
But civility can take pernicious forms. It's pernicious if we shy from calling out outrageous and despicable conduct. It's pernicious when we give armed government officials the benefit of the doubt because the culture tells us they're brave and nice. It's pernicious when we don't demand public explanations for conduct because the conduct is horrifying and unseemly. Most of all, it's pernicious when we decide that civility is substantive rather than procedural. Civility weighs against gratuitous shouting, insults, and threats. But civility does not require that we let the government beg the question. It does not require that we accept, as true, the premises about government power that have been served to us since birth.
The most important function of the press is to be a watchdog on power. I’d think that when made aware an incident such as this, caught on video, a good newspaper would start digging around to see if there had been similar incidents. (Here’s a tip for the paper’s assignment editors: If it’s happened once, it’s probably happened before.) Instead, the Aiken editorial board has chosen to praise police and local officials, and to reserve its skepticism for the publication that reported the incident. For all its derision toward me (the 665-word editorial uses the word “blog” 10 times), maybe the Aiken Standard could stand to take a lesson or two from opinion journalism. Do that, and perhaps the next time there’s national news in Aiken, the town’s newspaper will be the outlet that breaks it.Since the point the Washington Post broke the story the Aiken Standard couldn't be bothered to cover until it became unavoidable, there's been all sorts of attentiveness from the local paper. Multiple stories have appeared covering the fallout of these officers' actions -- which includes everything from the hasty installation of a citizen complaint review board to the city asking the FBI to open its own investigation into the incident. But nowhere in this flurry of coverage will you find the Aiken Standard walking back its petty attack on Balko and his "blogging." I suppose now that it's finally performing acts of journalism, it feels it's too far above the fray to offer an apology to Balko for its snide editorial, or to its readers for its journalistic failings.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, aiken, illegal search, police, radley balko, south carolina
Companies: aiken standard, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But some people are profoundly uncomfortable with the concept. Deep down, they feel that anything they don't have specific permission to do must be wrong or illegal, no matter what the laws say.
Unfortunately, the permission culture is having increasing say in how the government functions, and is eagerly passing laws to 'correct' the problem with the US legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full Retard
Really, you're publicly proclaiming that your *news organ* was limp for that long like that makes it better?! oh, Aiken Standard, bless your heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Retard
He's 'just' a blogger, he might not have run across the story until recently, however you're a 'professional' news agency, what's your excuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Retard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a VERY loose definition of 'neutral'
Ah good old hypocrisy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights Tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights Tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rights Tax?
That's not true, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution protect individuals, not just groups. You can see this is the case by the very lawsuit in question. It is not a class action, it is about this one incident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WaPo isn't owned by Amazon
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, not Amazon.
Bezos did found and still runs Amazon, but it's not Amazon that owns the WaPo, but Bezos himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WaPo isn't owned by Amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those "editors" at the Aiken Standard see no issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s not a news story conveying information from a neutral perspective.
Pardon? Since when has any news story, article or news cast reporting on the news been neutral? Every news story I've read has always been biased on the side of the moron reporting on the news item they are reporting on.
The liberal news media has always been biased on every news report. When have they ever been neutral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberal news media?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/here-are-13-things-everyone-would-know-if-we-really-had-a-liberal-me dia/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are on the same page, actually.
And I think the Aiken Standard would agree. It's just that they read "watchdog on power" like "editor on drugs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, the First Amendment not only protects criticism, it practically demands it.
It protects you from Governmental persecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First off, the First Amendment not only protects criticism, it practically demands it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every friggin' time I hear or read that, my blood pressure goes up. For the nth time, 'police officer' isn't one of the most dangerous jobs. Grrr!
https://financesonline.com/uploads/10-dangerous-jobs.jpg
Even refuse collectors have a more dangerous job, and for less pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We"? Is the Aiken Standard a defendant in the case? Or, more likely, did they run a police press release under the cover of an editorial without properly scrubbing off the serial numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search Warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search Warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search Warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's one of the best reporters that WaPo currently has. I recognize a few other names if I see them on the byline, but none are memorable enough to recall on their own. And I don't associate them with good or bad reporting (although remembering them usually means good).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Convenience Store Clerks
Why didn't the Aiken Standard take a moment to acknowledge the brave convenience store clerks? They too lay their lives on the line for us every day. Their job is more dangerous than police work yet they assault people far less often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Convenience Store Clerks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corruption here in South Carolina
http://www.scpolicycouncil.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orifice Medlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes! That anus might have had teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a farmer dies after losing control in a speeding truck, it's not counted as an occupational death. It is for a police officer. If you look on the Officer Down Memorial Page, they include even off duty incidences.
You could argue that it's justified, since police are almost immune to getting traffic tickets, which encourages them to engage in high-risk driving behavior.
Checking the ODMP, they have changed to separating out the police dog deaths. They were previously included in the regular list, which is very misleading. The last two deaths were from a heart attack and an officer running into the rear of a semi-truck. He was on his way home, but it was counted as an on-duty death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]