Media Reporting of Body Camera Use

Reporting of Body Camera Use

Aaron Carney

September 8, 2018

ESMG 4200 – John Fisher

Executive Summary:

This case study will go over the issues of mass communication revolving around an incident that relates to myths and media bias in reporting shootings. In this I will give a case example to outline the issue and I will give sources and information to explain the issue. The incident occurred in Las Vegas back in July of this year (2018). One article is given as source for the incident and other sources will be shown to outline how media myths can be perpetuated and how the media differs in coverage.

Incident:

The incident took place July of 2018 in Las Vegas. It was Las Vegas Metropolitan Police that was the involved agency.  The incident involved tow suspects, Fidel Miranda and Rene Nunez Both of them were suspects in a fatal shooting of a 25-year-old male who was shot multiple times in the chest. LVMPD was investigating the shooting and found a vehicle that matched the description of the suspect’s vehicle. A vehicle pursuit of the suspect car ensued. During the pursuit the suspect’s vehicle fired over 30 rounds from their vehicle in a random manner towards the public. The pursuit ended when a police officer fired his service weapon through his front windshield and then firing round out the driver’s window and then after disabling the suspect vehicle he fired another volley of rounds, subsequently killing one suspect and wounding the other who fled the scene.

According to the article I found from The Independent, it states “A shoot-out caught on a US police officer's body camera ended with the suspects being fired at through a patrol car windscreen. The incident between police officer William Umana and two men suspected of a homicide took place in Las Vegas on 11 July. Mr Umana is seen on camera shooting while driving, first using his open window and then blowing holes in his own windscreen. The suspects, Fidel Miranda and Rene Nunez, had allegedly fired 34 bullets at police. The pursuit eventually ended at a primary school where the suspects crashed their vehicle.” (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-cop-shoots-through-window-windscreen-suspects-police-officer-a8451401.html).

Problem:

What issues arise when media sources take data out of context? What happens to opinion when mass communication from the media is designed to alter viewpoint rather than give fact? How is this resolved?

Analysis:

LVMPD released the body camera footage of the incident and gave the context of the incident.  https://youtu.be/M_bF7i2_ok4 . The footage in the most uncut version I could find starts with the pursuit of the suspect vehicle by the officer. Over the course of a few minutes you hear over 30 shots fired by the suspect vehicle. It is not until 3 minutes and 21 seconds into the 4-minute video that the officer discharges his weapon. So where is the issue starting? The issue is that one source that I found from The Independent tells us in the article that the officer fired his weapon but did not give much context as to why or when. There is only one word in the beginning of the article that indicates the timing of the officer’s shots in context to the pursuit. It is natural for articles and stories to differ and even camera footage to be started and stopped in such a way that context is lost. This causes a huge potential problem when you have mass communication of these articles. It causes a massive amount of possible confusion or even intentional or unintendedly biased toward law enforcement. Those are but a few of the issues that arise when incidents are taken out of context or are just reported in a way that doesn’t give context as is needed. One huge issue as well is that footage of incidents like these are made available with ease on a mass scale. Who is affected by this issue? I think everyone is affected by it. When things are viewed out of context, whether intentionally or by accident, we leave ourselves open to form opinion that is not based on all the facts.  When we examine the issues of law enforcement (I think this also applies to EMS and to Fire) versus media bias one of the largest issues is the mass communication of bias reporting leads to more violence. According to an article from Fox news, “A recent FBI study showed that one-sided media reporting and social media posts about officer-involved shooting incidents lead to further episodes of violence against police.” The article tittles this the “Ferguson Effect”. That refers to the shooting of a young black male in Ferguson Missouri that caused a new trend of violence against police and media bias and a movement of distrust towards police. This from what I can gather is caused much by how information is so easily at our finger tips that news becomes almost live. This is a good and a bad thing. When we look at a situation as it occurs but not within proper context we lose sight of the truth.  That answers what occurs to opinion when mass communication is used to alter views rather than present fact.

How is this resolved? If we examine a YouTube video released by the LAPD, we see one method that is now being used to combat ignorance and intentional bias about police shootings. https://youtu.be/MPuDn4A6KnI . This video outlines a critical incident that occurred by the LAPD. The police department is essentially controlling the information as it is presented but they are not withholding key facts but are explaining in a n open manner he facts. When we look at mass communication I believe when the source of the news is open with the facts it is easier to sway bias issues and confusion. In a sense the answer is the old phrase, “to hear it from the horse’s mouth”.

Key decision Criteria:

When we look at the above we are seeing small but significant examples of what the issue is and how to resolve it. In the case of the incident about the LVMPD shooting from the window the issue that arose is the free from information presented allowed intentional and unintended bias to alter one’s viewpoint. The key to resolving the bias is to take note of the LAPD model, to give the information freely (as law dictates) and to explain the actions. This allows the media when covering the story to have all the facts they need and to have clear direction thus allowing the media reporting to be clear and factual. 

Recommendations:

I would say that the best solution to resolve misunderstanding and bias within the media is;

1. Give clear facts of the incident as needed.

2. Build trust and rapport with the releasing of information (as we see in LAPD videos)

3. Control flow of information to keep integrity of incidents and the context.

Action and implementation plan:

The key to attaining a media reported story that has all the context and facts starts with the information itself. As we saw in the video of the LVMP shooting the context was somewhat lost as we did not see why or how things began but only the climax of events. I would say the starting point if with the PIO and the releasing of information in a timely and factual way. The next thing to do is on the shoulders of those reporting the information, whether it be from a YouTube port to a written article by mainstream media. They need to report the facts and context without bias.

References:

Bodycam Shows Officer Shooting At Suspect Through Windshield

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bF7i2_ok4 , Sourced 9/8/18

Critical Incident Video Release NRF046-18. (2018, September 04).  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPuDn4A6KnI

Collins, L. (2018, July 17). Dashcam video shows Las Vegas police officer shooting at suspects through his windscreen. Retrieved September 8, 2018, from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-cop-shoots-through-window-windscreen-suspects-police-officer-a8451401.html

Fox News (2017, May 06). 'Ferguson Effect': FBI Says Biased Media Narratives Lead to Violence Against Police. Retrieved September 8, 2018, from http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/06/fbi-says-biased-mainstream-media-led-police-officer-violent-crimes-ferguson-effect

Media coverage of a hostage situation

Media coverage of a hostage situation

Case Study Issues in Mass Communication

Jaclyn McGraw

September 9, 2018

Executive Summary

            The media has a monumental impact on the public and on the outcomes of hostage crisis situations. The media has the freedom of speech but the authorities also have a right and duty to control this type of situation in order to protect the hostages, reduce chaos, and inform the public by doing so in the correct way and with correct information that will help the cause, not hurt it.

Description of the Case

It is to be expected that each news station wanted the best angles for their viewers, the most information and to be top rated. It is journalist jobs to keep up to date and bring the most to the table, by any means. In August 2010, a man was holding tourists on a bus hostage in the Philippines. The media decided to broadcast this event and their findings live, doing so sparked heated criticism. The crisis led to the death of eight tourists and the hostage-taker, who happened to be a former police officer, Rolando Mendoza, who was fired last year after being charged with extortion and robbery. Three key issues came up in the debates; the disagreement between journalists and the public over how the situation should have been covered, the need for greater communication between journalists and the police during hostage situations, and the difference between how the Philippines and the U.S. have applied ethical guidelines to crisis situations.

Problem/Issue Statement

Should the public be informed on all hostage-based disasters? Hostage taking media coverage undermines the government, can create chaos, and breaks relationships between the government and the people but the media and family has the right to freedom of speech.

Data Analysis

When media covers a hostage situation, it creates sympathy and dialogue for the hostage-takers, as well as the hostages. By doing this, the takers then manipulate the situation by bringing into light their political agenda and strife. Leading the outcome in their favor of them being portrayed as the victims/heroes while the government is places in the peoples minds as the bad guys who allowed or pushed these men into a ‘desperate’ criminal act. At this point, everyone is watching their every move and no matter what the government does they are seen as weak. They must comply with the takers demands or the public will blame them for any harm done to their people. On the other hand though, if they do comply then they are judged for negotiating with ‘terrorists’ and this is all due to media coverage. Hostage-takers want to be heard and in most cases having it covered by the media to spread the news is just what they want in the first place and only puts everyone in a harder situation. It also has an effect on the hostage, with media coverage putting attention and force on the situation, family may come forward to make informational statements and/or offer rewards for their loved ones safe return. Doing so might increase the ‘value’ of a hostage, might put their family in danger, or complicate the situation. For example “Giving away too much information about the hostage can also help ‘copycats’ who claim to have the hostage and divert attention and resources away from the real case,” (Hostage US, 2016). Each country has its own way of journalism and culture and this changes how journalists operate across the world. “Ressa and others from ABS-CBN said that journalistic practices widely accepted in the U.S. are not as relevant halfway across the world,” (Tenore, 2010). Viewers would publicly blame the media for risking the lives of the hostages and giving Mendoza a chance to track police responses and grow increasingly more violent due to reports that were aired of his brother’s arrest. They also faulted the media for not following guidelines and for interviewing Mendoza during the crisis situation. The media had provoked Mendoza around the hostages. "Tony Velasquez, a senior news correspondent for ABS-CBN and an anchor for ANC, its English-language news channel, said the station considered the implications of its decision to broadcast the hostage situation live. He pointed out that the decision would have been easier to make if there had been better communication between police and journalists. ‘Most of our colleagues agree that our overriding goal of delivering information justified keeping the live broadcast on air,’ Velasquez said via e-mail. ‘But in retrospect, some have also acknowledged that the authorities could, and should, have put their foot down when the situation was getting critical, and directed that live coverage be cut before any provocative action against the hostage-taker would be taken,’” (Tenore, 2010). The media and police were not on the same page, which caused chaos. Family members were brought to the scene and allowed to speak freely to the media. The police later were forced to admit that the assault team that tried to rescue the hostages was inadequately trained as well. It was reported that an additional problem was "non-compliance to media relations procedures in hostage situations," (James, 2010). This has shown to be a major problem between authorities and media members, causing negative and unpredictable affects towards the situation and also on the public relationship and public view on authorities.

Key Decision Criteria

It is important to understand what will be covered, how it will be portrayed and who/how will this affect the situation. These three questions should play a role in every hostage situation because each crisis is different. Even though the hostage crisis has ended, the conversation about it however has just begun. This is where reassessing decisions come into play, like if the media should have reported live or not.

Alternatives Analysis

            In efforts to help the authorities and media, President Benigno Aquino III has assigned government officials to meet with various media groups to set up parameters for covering future hostage situations. This should be put into place with all crisis situations regarding the media to help ensure a more effective progress throughout and a positive outcome.

Recommendations

Controlling the information is part of the authorities involvement when resolving a crisis like this one. Journalists are there to tell a story, authorities resolve the situation and if authorities are in control, they lay ground rules. That way, the journalist knows what they can touch upon and what to leave alone for the time being and the officers can then lead the focus in the direction that can help the hostages.

Action and Implementation Plan

            Seeing that each country is different, there should be parameters set up for covering future hostage situations through various media groups. It should work well between countries, respecting their culture but also spreading the correct information in a way that helps the situation instead of driving it to become unstable.

References

D. (2016). Governments should ban the media from reporting hostage-taking. Retrieved

September 9, 2018, form https://debatewise.org/debates/1004-governments-should-ban-

the-media-from-reporting-hostage-taking/

Hostage US. (2016). Media. Retrieved September 9, 2018, from

https://hostageus.org/families/practical-challenges/media/

James, F. (2010, August 24). Philippine Police Show How To Not Handle Hostage Crises.

Retrieved September 9, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/08/24/129402216/philippine-police-show-how-to-not-handle-hostage-crises

Smith, D. (2004, September 26). Concerns over media coverage of crises. Retrieved September

9, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/26/pressandpublishing.Iraqandthemedia

Tenore, M. J. (2010, August 24). Live Coverage of Philippine Hostage Situation Sparks

Criticism, Debate. Retrieved September 9, 2018, from https://www.poynter.org/news/live-coverage-philippine-hostage-situation-sparks-criticism-debate