FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Columns : Editorial

Drawing First Blood

When reporters file their first stories after a deadly force incident, you can bet they'll be wrong and you'll pay the price.

October 09, 2013  |  by - Also by this author

Photo via Vastateparksstaff/Flickr.
Photo via Vastateparksstaff/Flickr.
The day Anwar Sadat was killed I was working on a daily newspaper. There, I learned many lessons. And the lesson I learned the day of Sadat's murder was you can't trust breaking news.

Back in 1981 we didn't have the Internet, Facebook, or Twitter. What we did have, at least in a newsroom, was the wire services. And the day of Sadat's murder, we got a flash over the wire that said he had been shot by a tank during a military parade. In truth he was killed by AK fire. But to this day in my mind I have visions of the Egyptian president being gunned down by a tank.

Breaking news tends to be at least somewhat wrong; that's the nature of the business. And such first reports also linger in the minds of the public.

Unfortunately for you, breaking news often involves you and your actions on the job. The nature of your profession is that sometimes you find yourself in the middle of a real mess, one that escalates to the point that you have to use deadly force. When that happens you are news. So the reporters swarm trying to find out what happened and file their stories.

And they rarely get all the facts right because the truth is that the facts are still hazy by the time their first stories are posted on the Web, broadcast, or inked onto paper. That haziness doesn't clear until the official investigation is complete. But by then the reporters have created a "truth" that persists in the public consciousness long after the real facts have been revealed. As your mother and your kindergarten teacher taught you, first impressions mean a lot.

I'm writing this toward the end of September and there are two major stories of law enforcement actions in the news that likely will be revealed as wrong.

Item One—On Sept. 7, the Pine Bluff (Ark.) Police Department was called to the home of an 80-year-old woman who said her 107-year-old housemate, Monroe Isadore, was threatening her with a pistol because she wanted him to find another place to live. Responding officers tried to reason with the man but he shot at them.

So the officers did the smart thing. They withdrew, set up a perimeter, and called in SWAT. Reports say that the SWAT team tried to negotiate with Isadore, then gas was deployed, and when that did not work, a dynamic entry was made. Isadore opened fire on the team during the entry and he was killed. Stories about the incident were posted by the media worldwide.

The case is now sealed pending a state investigation. And I believe one of the things the investigation will reveal is that Isadore gave the SWAT officers no other choice.

But regardless of what the investigation reveals, the facts won't get the kind of coverage the initial barricade incident received. So the Pine Bluff SWAT team will forever be known internationally for being so "trigger happy" that they killed a centenarian in a gunfight, even if it's later determined that doing so prevented further loss of life.

Item Two—Officer Randall Kerrick of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department killed an unarmed 24-year-old, African-American man named Jonathan Ferrell about 2:30 a.m. on Sept. 14. The next day the department requested that the DA charge Kerrick with voluntary manslaughter.

Public opinion in Charlotte is that a "panicked, inexperienced" cop gunned down Ferrell. But no one in the press is asking some key questions about this case that will likely be answered at trial.

Ferrell had a car accident that morning. Then he walked to a house and banged on the door purportedly seeking help. After that the facts get murky, and those outside the investigation are left with questions about police operations during the incident, about the 911 complainant's terror during the 17.5-minute recorded call, and about Ferrell's behavior toward the complainant and toward the police.

The video taken from the patrol car has not been released to the public, but Officer Kerrick's attorney says it will exonerate his client. Even if it does, it won't clear Kerrick's name. The public will probably always remember him as the officer who gunned down an unarmed man who was asking for help after an accident because that's what was first reported.

I don't have a solution for the problem of erroneous breaking news reports on police incidents. All I can tell you is that the situation is getting worse because of tools like Twitter. Long ago I was taught that journalism was literature in a hurry. Contemporary journalism is actually facts in a hurry, and hurried facts often aren't facts at all.

Tags: Police-Media Relations, Social Media, Media Misconduct, Pine Bluff (Ark.) PD, Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD, Twitter


Comments (4)

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

Marshal @ 10/17/2013 12:20 PM

It isn't that there isn't enough initial information. It is that the media purposely lies and or embellishes in the story to make it sound more exciting. They make no effort to get the truth and if the truth isn't as exciting they make it exciting. For example, headlines like "police gun down a alleged rapist" or "alleged criminal slain by police". Now if a cop is shot "police officer shot by a man they were chasing". See any difference?

Chuck @ 10/17/2013 4:20 PM

If it bleeds it leads, or if you don't tell me what I want to hear, the way I want to hear it, then I will fill in the blanks; my way. I don't think there is a news paper, computer generated news source (using that term very loosely) or television media outlet that is unbiased, non-biased or not slanted. It used to be that you could trust the guy sitting at the news desk to tell you the unbiased straight story and the National Enquirer was where your read the bigfoot stories. Now, they are all the National Enquirer, no one even knows what the truth looks like and the National Enquirer is probably closer to the truth than any of the media outlets.

James @ 10/18/2013 4:48 AM

We used to cal things what they are, today we pretend it's not as it is. Most of the media is left of Stalin and we wonder why they detest anything of traditional value, like the truth? Seriously folks, our media is a group largely comprised of cop hating God hating former hippie types who's bias is always the first and foremost in their minds. Even when the facts are in they lean against law enforcement and intentionally lean for the thugs. Do I know what happened of course not, but my guess is there is another story the media is refusing to air and they already know what happened from talking to witnesses other than Law Enforcement.

Did we forget the leftists used to say, "out of chaos, come order" and what does the media breed? Chaos via false reporting, false claims, and when the true story comes out that contradicts the anti cop, anti society lies the media sits quiet. Happens almost every time. The media has become facebook, a load of hate filled pseudo intellectuals.

R G Montgomery @ 10/21/2013 7:10 AM

Frankly, I'm not much more kindly disposed toward the Fourth Estate than the prior posters, but I'll try to be more 'even handed' (no offense to the other posters).

A common theme of modern news media is 'Flashy' and 'Sensational'. This is probably the influence of editors more than reporters - the headline, either in print or on the air - must attract attention. Still, the duty of the news media is to report - correctly - the events of the day. Or minute.

The on-the-scene reporter has an obligation to everyone to get the facts correct. When a reporter gets the answer from a lawman of "Sorry, I cannot comment right now" and the reporter simply asks another question, this means the reporter is NOT listening. That reporter ignores the reality of the situation and wants something to publish or broadcast.

Getting facts starts with paying attention. Ask any decent interviewer.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

Estate Planning: What Will You Do?
You have a "go-bag" for the rare active shooter and even visualize racing down a school...
What Records Wants You to Know
The end of your report is merely the start of a process that involves many gatekeepers....
Glove-Mounted Light: Handy Lighting
It's difficult to perform other tasks when you're holding a light. Officer Suresh Madhavan...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine