Bad Blood? - Police Vs Media

[ewink]

Despite the topic, I don't want this to be a confrontational thread. I am hoping to use your responses to my question to better perform my job (as a tv photographer), and hopefully you guys can learn a little something about my job.

I am curious - why does there seem to be so much bad blood between the media and the police?

The way I see it, we both are public servants. You guys, obviously, to protect us (the public) and my guys to inform and educate the public to what's happening in their neighborhoods.

I don't have this problem (much) locally. Springfield, Illinois city PD (from the LT's down) don't have issues with us (the Commanders up do - but that's a different story for a different day), with the exception of a few of the old timers who won't talk. All the local smaller PD's and the Sheriff's Office are also pretty cool with us as well. The ISP is somewhat standoffish, but I kind of expect that from them as the ISP is very 'military'; and I don't mean that as an insult.

However other photographers I have spoken with have told stories of police being angry and unreasonable in regards to the media presence. Issuing unfair orders like pushing the media to one place while they allow civilian gawkers to be closer... Setting up over zealous crime scenes to keep media up to a block away... And in a couple of cases, arresting media for disobeying orders to move back (in one case saying a photographer was interfering with EMS while the video tape clearly shows that he was not) from something as simple as a traffic accident.

I guess my question is two prong. First, why the bad blood, and second, how do you personally feel about the media? If you don't think there is any bad blood, feel free to comment on that as well.

I want to make my intentions clear when asking this, as I know there might be some apprehension. I am not doing this for a story. I am not doing this to show other photographers 'look, they are all asses and they do hate us!'. I am doing this out of my own personal curiousity.

As I stated earlier, I don't see any 'bad blood' between us from the cops I have delt with. I've only had one 'bad' experience with a police officer while working and I chock that up to the fact that he was just an ***.

Thanks for any responses and stay safe!

Erin

[acreature]

There is no "Bad Blood". The Media sells a service. They are no longer about "News", they are about selling papers, or getting commercial time sold for money.

What sells is bad news, that's all. The general public doesn't pay much attention to good news media, hence the lack of it.

[Babysmamadrama]

Ok, what will sell more?

"Police Gun Down Motorist on Highway 55" or "Police Use Deadly Force End The Threat of an Armed Man Who Fired At Them?"

[Johninaustin]

Hmm, Maybe it has something to do with the complete inability of the local media to tell the truth.

Then there are all those "Investigative" pieces. (A very popular hobby of the media here)

Ever been timed while eating dinner? I have. Ever been accused in front of a camera of shooting people simply because they are black? I have. Ever had an interview edited into a work of fiction? Oh yeah, I have.

How about the officers from a neighboring agency that were FOLLOWED HOME and filmed entering their house?(With the address given)

There is a SERIOUS adversarial relationship with the media here, and it's not the police fomenting it. After all, we have no interest in selling anything. We just want these nabobs to stay out of the way.

Perhaps it's time for responsible folks in media to take a look at the ethics and professionalism of their fellows. The local guys and gals I wouldn't give the time of day to. If they worked for The Austin American Statesman I'd arrest them the second they crossed a crime scene tape.

It is interesting to note, you can correlate a police "Hit" piece from the media here with arrests of local media personalites. (Drugs, hookers, and masturbating in the park seems to be very popular) We're being "investigated" for using Tasers on minorities at the moment.

[Seand442]

The media can be your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on the situation. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the media is in business to make money and they will spin the truth to make a story sound better to sell more papers and such. The majority of reporters I have spoke to were very professional. Unfortuantely, it is the one guy who screws it up for everybody. Another reason is that reporters want every little detail the second we find it out so they can go broadcast it across the air. When they don't get, they keep asking and sometime start whining like they have a right to know. If it is 1)something you need to know and 2) something we are able to share, you will probably get it.

[Old Trooper]

The main concern of the media is to sell newspapers, commercial time on tv, ratings, etc. The truth is secondary, or at least the presentation of the truth is a secondary concern. In this area, a local newspaper printed a photo on the front page of a doll lying in the roadway at an accident scene where a little girl was killed. COMPLETELY TASTELESS and INCONSIDERATE! Over the years, I have been involved in cases where reporters/photographers lie or sneak around to get a story or a picture, regardless of who or what they might be interfering with.....does the word "bottom feeder" ring a bell?? (nothing personal, since I don't know YOU) and I have had great relationships with some media people (including some well known ones in the NY area) but in general, they are just above lawyers!

[Oldbillplod]

The media lie or elaborate the truth that's all there is to say on the matter.

[Group9]

1. The incomprehensible policy of the media that it is better to be the first person to report an event and have only half the facts right than to wait and report it with all of the facts correct. Imagine if the police worked this way. We don't. Our reports are meticulously examined by supervisors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and even the media. Heaven help us if we have put something incorrect in one through haste or laziness.

2. Reporters who will write a story about an issue they know nothing about without making any attempt to educate themselves at all about it. No one is an expert on everything. Most people are lucky to be somewhat of an expert in one small area. Reporters have come to the erroneous conclusion that you don't have to know anything about a subject to write about it.

3. Reporters who will write a story that is wrong, put it on the front page, cause unmitigated grief for the target of it and then print a small retraction on page twenty seven and move on, thinking everything is okay. The television reporters are even worse, putting out videos that they themselves have to know don't tell the whole truth, or are in some cases completely misleading, because they have a hole in their evening news show and need something exciting to put there. And, no, the defense that if you had not run it, someone else probably would have, is not accepted by us.

4. Reporters who are quick to believe any witness, no matter how incredible or illogical their story is. Howard Stern has made it a running gag of how easy it is to get on television news by just calling up and claiming to be a witness to some high profile event, i.e. the O. J. Simpson chase. We, who have to scrupulously verify and check our informants before using them in court proceedings, or to obtain warrants, do not respect your source checking methodology.

5. Being too lazy to want to take the time to build up trust with police officers to get their side of the story. I have a newspaper reporter who constantly calls me up for quotes. Everytime she does I say the same thing, 'I don't know you, why don't you come by my office and let me meet you.' Imagine how I feel when I read that all I said was, 'No comment'.

Maybe these comments and some of the other ones will be of some value. The new reporters I have respected have been the ones I trusted. The ones I would tell something off the record so that they could understand what was going on in an investigation were the ones I trusted. The ones I would give interviews to are the ones I trusted. I don't trust many reporters any more.

[Deputy757]

While I've not had all the problems John has had, I'm also leery about dealing with members of the media. I think it's nice to say that they are public servants and romanticizing about being the defenders of the 1st amendment, and maybe some line reporters really do feel this way, but the overwhelmingly obvious bottom line is to make money. Nothing sells like controversy so when the police are involved, the best thing to do is make the story controversial...even if it's not. Why do you think the picture of the recently deceased or arrested BG is always of him as a choir boy or at graduation? If they posted his mug shot from any of the numerous prior arrests it just would be as controversial. No one would think..."hmmm, now why would such a nice young man try to disarm a police officer?"
ewink, you mention that certain officers don't talk to you. Well, unless they are the department's PIO or have been instructed by a commander to give you a statement, they shouldn't be talking to you. I never speak to the media unless I've been told to do so. Well, I take that back. I did not too long ago but there was a very good reason to do so.
I had just pulled a woman away from the railing overlooking the KY river where she had minutes earlier threatened hospital staff she was going to jump from. It seemed like forever before any other LE arrived and when they did, one of them explained that a local tv station vehicle had pretty much refused to yield the ROW while they were trying to get to me. They (the news crew) were trying to get to the scene as well. A few minutes later the van pulled up and a very young reporter walked up to us. I asked him why they had been blocking the road and he uttered an offhanded apology immediately followed with a "what's going on"? I told him that what was going on was that he was lucky he wasn't going to be writing up his story from the back of one of our cruisers on the way to jail. I then asked who his boss was and told him I would be in touch with him (which I was about five minutes later). He left without the story needless to say.

[Deputy757]

If they posted his mug shot from any of the numerous prior arrests it just would be as controversial.

Should read..."wouldn't be as controversial". Sorry!

[lindat2957]

The first thing, in my area, that causes friction, is that the headlines very rarely are slanted in our favor or in the honest perspective. It sells more papers to have headlines like "man killed by police is said to have had 64 entry wounds", failing to mention of course he was a) armed and shooting back B) shot by officers armed with shot guns loaded with buck shot. The why is simply that to make it look like the police over reacted sells more. Or we read headlines of events that we worked and see no similarities between reality and what was published.
I have had a few run-ins that have left a bad taste. One was in a hostage situation. Everything was outside. The bad guy was armed with a knife holding the victim. We were trying to talk to him, but the noise of the news helicopter was making it impossible. We asked, not told, the helicopter to move and explained why. We were told simply "NO", so we had to have the FAA tell them to move, this wasted valuable time and could have cost the victim her life.
The second was where a woman and her small child were killed. The media was all over the family, so we moved the family as far away as possible, behind an iron gate. My job was to play human shield so the family could have privacy to mourn. The camera men at the gate were quite unhappy and kept asking why I couldn't let them do their jobs. The is quite simple. My job is to help the community I serve, in this case a family who suffered a great loss, geez guys think of it from their side, would you want a camera in your face after something like that?
And finally when we are in the middle of something major, we are all rather busy. Why does the media assume that we are so hihgly staffed that we can afford to take someone away and answer their questions? Just let us do our jobs and when all has calmed down, we would be more than happy to share.
Other than that I have been asked by camera men if they could come into my scene for photos, when feasable I have had no issues with it, so long as they don't keep me from doing my job.

[MOCOP]

I don't know if it's bad blood but rather a desire not to deal with media. It's due to the media's propensity to sell papers or increase ratings by running sensational stories that very seldom reflect the facts.

While the media proclaims to be about the truth. They will sh*tcan the truth to put a spin on a story to sell soap.

[Valor55]

I have to ditto everything everybody else has said here.

Regardless of your journalistic ideals you sell soap. And frequently if police are involved you sell soap at our expense regardless of the truth.

[JD45]

We have local media that portays us poorly when the opportunity arises. However, we have one local reporter who we all pretty much know, who sheds either a fair light on the subject he's reporting on or even one from a law enforcement stance.

Guess who gets better access to us and crime scenes... :cool:

[acreature]

I have been misquoted and only reportede in too many bad situations, or situations easily reported "as" bad to have any trust for a journalist.

Though, even though you are a photographer, you know what we all mean.