

After the newspapers die, who will watch the police? - mhb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022703591.html

======
ShabbyDoo
One problem (of many) is that police abuse disproportionally affects those of
lower socio-economic status. So, those who have the power to do something
about it have below-average personal motivations. Certainly, Bill Gates isn't
at great risk for contracting malaria, and he's still doing something about
it. However, the average upper-middle class American probably thinks police
misconduct is a much less serious problem than someone living in an inner-city
housing project.

As a teenager, I was always shocked at how rude police were to me; they seemed
to have no respect for the laws they were supposedly there to enforce.
However, as a 30-something, even when getting a speeding ticket, the police
are generally polite. Have the police changed, or have they started treating
me as someone who might have some power to keep them in check?

~~~
zandorg
Or because you're older?

At the age of 14, I used to carry a Commodore 64 to my friend's house, and
once the police stopped me thinking I was a burglar, and I showed them this
_thing_ with circuit boards hanging off, and said 'Would I steal THIS?'. It
was pretty funny. I also ranted on about being a 'law-abiding citizen', which
helped.

~~~
anthonyb
Of course nowadays you'd be arrested for being a terrorist.

------
jacoblyles
There is good work being done by internet writers. For example, Radley Balko's
stories have gotten more than one corrupt prosecutor fired. His efforts at
exposing phony forensic experts in Mississippi could lead to many freed
innocent men:

<http://reason.com/blog/show/131954.html>

I've rarely seen newspapers conduct that kind of journalism, especially on the
national level. Another example: Balko has been almost single-handedly raising
awareness about the death and violence that occurs from the military-style
raids that many police departments use to arrest suspects of non-violent
crimes. I haven't heard any newspapers tracking that story:

<http://www.cato.org/raidmap/>

This website has exposed more corrupt police practices than any newspaper I
know about:

<http://www.theagitator.com/>

But regardless, the death of the newspaper is going to cause a lot of change
in our society. Not all the costs will be easily dealt with.

------
lacker
Unfortunately I don't know of any profitable way to provide local news without
having it subsidized by classifieds, car ads, real estate ads, etc. Newspapers
used to be profitable because they dominated all these things. But on the web,
they become detached. Ebay and craigslist can efficiently serve many places
and scale up effectively. But it's hard to watch the police in 100 major
cities at once.

How much money would people pay to provide the service of watching the police?
I'm afraid the answer is... not much. It has to be tied to something else, or
to have a nonprofit structure.

~~~
0xdefec8
It depresses me sometimes how almost everything in society can be be reduced
to the question "but how will this generate money"? On the other hand, maybe
the sooner people are honest with reality and start asking that question
first, the sooner we'd get solutions to problems like this one. At least that
seems to be the libertarian take on things. It just concerns me that the end
result of the invisible hand given absolute power is something out of a
William Gibson nightmare.

~~~
lacker
The reason we got all this great investigative reporting in the first place
was because newspapers were making money.

Journalism needs to have its own source of power besides the government. You
can't simultaneously depend on the government for funding and make it your
mission to expose the government's shortfalls. Profit provides that power.

~~~
drinian
Yes and no; the BBC is perceived as independent even while publicly funded; so
are NPR and PBS, to a much lesser extent.

~~~
anamax
Their "independence" doesn't mean that they'll investigate
anything/everything. For example, while all of them are willing to quibble
about specific aspects of specific govt programs, they're unwilling to go
after govt programs in the large (with the small exception of military
projects).

------
ShabbyDoo
I have often wondered what the impact would be of assigning some journalism
students along with a mentor to cover the politics of a small town in
gratuitous detail. Scrutinize every action of the city council. Cull through
the police reports. Examine who wins and who loses when zoning policies are
changed (one of the main bastions of wealth transfer via politics, IMHO).
Would citizens care enough to read about this stuff? Would politicians become
more accountable?

This seems like it would be a cheap (< $500K) experiment to conduct in a few
towns. Perhaps some foundation interested in government transparency could
fund it. However, I don't see how it would scale out without a revenue model
behind it.

------
showerst
I would make the argument that police are becoming more accountable, not less,
as a result of technology (particularly cell-phone video) and common knowledge
of FOIA statutes (at least in the US). The cases of the man shot on Seattle
transit and the abusive officer in Saint Louis that were both caught on video
and punished (and otherwise may not have been) come to mind.

It's probably better that responsibility for tracking cops is more widely
disseminated, so that one or two lazy (or corrupt, or ideologically motivated)
reporter(s) can't set the tone for an entire city.

On the other hand, it does help to have these things spread by someone seen as
neutral, and willing to do some leg-work. Perhaps we need something like a
consumerist for police? (I could see this being generalized to local
governments too). Or perhaps it will fall into the purview of hyperlocal sites
like everyblock. Right now most of these seem to use a highly automated
approach, although I imagine they'll evolve into a more user-contributed
model.

We need something more than the patchwork "Hope someone catches it on video
and it makes youtube's front page" model for accountability than we have now,
but I'm not sure that local newspaper reporters are the best solution going
forward.

There's been talk for years about getting a standardized accessible electronic
format for crime data across the US (John Udell in particular has discussed
this at length) but I think we're a long way from any real implementation of
that, sadly.

~~~
jws
We may not be talking about the same St. Louis officer, but the tape that
caught the one I am thinking of was illegal. In many places it is illegal to
record video and audio of strangers. It is probably an unintended artifact of
old wire tapping laws, but law enforcement agents have been more than happy to
exploit it to suppress videos of malfeasance.

------
vaksel
The TV stations? If a cop shoots someone in the back I want to watch the
video. If a cop beats the crap out of a 15 year old girl I want to watch the
video. If a cop knocks a bicycler off his bicycle I want to watch the video.

\+ Its not like the newspapers do anything about it, they just report it. Its
the redditors and 4channers and youtubers who go on a crusade to hold these
guys accountable

~~~
lacker
Redditors getting outraged because of a video showing police brutality is
great. But it doesn't scale to cover things like fact-checking the police,
like the article is talking about. If there isn't a shocking video, TV news
and Reddit won't really care.

Consider the article's example of Baltimore. How often is there a reddit,
4chan, or youtube outrage relating to Baltimore? Whereas the Baltimore Sun can
have crime reporters there every day.

~~~
netcan
That's true to an extent but.... (I apologise for the terminology)

There are already great examples of 'new media,' amateurs supported by new
technologies & online communities doing things that would not have gotten done
under a 100% old media regime. Exposing police brutality, war crimes, or other
issues we associate with heavy duty press. That is, there are circumstances
that involve more then a flood of commentary where new media does a better job
then old media.

On the other hand, New Media is not going to fill all the wholes old media
leaves behind. I think that's clear already.

But we don't really know what, how deep or how many these holes are going to
be. Currently, reddit/youtube supplement exixsting media because existing
media exists. If we take professional media out of the equation, it will
evolve differently.

There might not be that much of a long term net loss from newspapers going out
of business. There are some shocking videos going to be produced outside of
conventional media. It's still not clear how many or what quality.

------
Tichy
Doesn't the author refute his own point when towards the end of the article he
admits that it has become very rare for reporters to actually research those
things? Also, he only provides anecdotal evidence when he says "no blogger was
trying to cover this". There are probably countless other offenses that no
newspaper reporters are trying to cover, either.

I wonder if newspapers and other media overestimate their power? They would
like to think that they can sway public opinion, but maybe ultimately they are
simply forced to write scandalous stories, but they can not manufacture them.
Like they can make a lot of money out of "Britney Spears cut her hair", but
maybe if they tried to make a big fuzz about that police incident, nobody
would care and nobody would buy the newspaper anyway.

~~~
unalone
He's making the point that newspapers don't do this anymore, either, and that
there's very little chance of newspapers starting to do things any better,
which is a problem.

------
alecco
Press is show. Single anecdotal cases make headlines. What doesn't make a
headline doesn't get reported. "Crime is down everywhere" doesn't sell. Some
"news" like fear mongering with terrorism or a cute lost child get full.

It's time for a change.

~~~
katz
Really? I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption.
Investigative reporting is extremely important - and there is no alternative
to that.

~~~
anamax
> I can think of numerous cases where the press uncovered corruption.

And I can think of numerous cases where the press "uncovered corruption" that
wasn't. I can think of cases where the press helped with/caused corruption.

Never confuse ideals with reality.

~~~
katz
I have not heard of a case where the press was involved in corruption -
honestly. And even if they were corrupt, they were corrupt with private money.

Even in cases where the press "got it wrong" the harm of public interest was
not that great. Maybe in the USA there are not a lot of corruption - but in my
country it is rife.

Politicians wants to push everything under the carpet and the police system is
wilfully incompetent (since it falls under the minister of safety and
security, another politician).

The reality is that there are a few publications that do excellent work. Here
are a few things in which the press paid a significant part in bringing to
light: corruption in a massive arms deal (and by the next president), dealings
of a mining magnate (who eventually was murdered), showing corruption by the
national police commissioner, shedding light on numerous large fraudulent
financial schemes, etc...

The list can go on. I doubt a blogger will be able to take on complex and
multi-faceted corruption cases while he is being sued from all sides.

~~~
aristus
Try that line with an actual journalist. There is corruption everywhere, even
in the newsrooms. And politicians don't always want to hide things.

A few years ago it came out that Deep Throat was Mark Felt -- he had been #3
at the FBI. Felt was disgruntled that Nixon had passed him over for promotion
after JE Hoover died, and so carried out a leak campaign through the
Washington Post that ultimately brought Nixon down.

The Post editors and Woodward & Berstein knew who Felt was. They chose to keep
quiet and accept _decades_ of hero-worship. The truth was that they were
willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of political revenge.

~~~
katz
"There is corruption everywhere, even in the newsrooms."

So? What is to prevent a rival paper from reporting on the newsroom? (I
actually have memory of this happening - an editor of a major newspaper was a
philander and another paper ran an article on him. Another big story happened
20 odd years ago - one paper was funded by the government and another
newspaper brought that to light - the result was that one of the people who
organised funding did not become president).

"And politicians don't always want to hide things."

So, if they are not hiding something they would not mind people looking? I am
one of those people who think it is a good idea of a healthy dose of cynicism
for public officials.

"They chose to keep quiet and accept decades of hero-worship. The truth was
that they were willing participants in a rather slimy and petty act of
political revenge."

The question is not if Woodward&Bernstein were upstanding citizens with good
values. The question is this: Was the Watergate affair good for the country?
Would it be better if it had not been brought to light?

~~~
aristus
You went from "I have not heard of a case ..." to mentioning a few cases. I
took your first comment at face value; now I don't know what to make of it.

~~~
katz
Philandering around the workplace is usually a big no-no but it is definitely
not corruption by any stretch of the imagination. I did this to show you that
journalists will easily turn on their own kind.

As for the case of the government covertly starting a newspaper, I have not
heard about it (but read about it in history books). They did this with the
express purpose to change public opinion - since the current English
newspapers were too critical of the government (with good reason). That really
is before my time (20+ years or more).

I do not recall a single instance in my country where journalists were found
guilty of corruption. Yet for politicians the list of the non-corrupt would
probably be shorter.

------
mixmax
video and pictures from mobile phones spread by bloggers.

Not a day goes by on Reddit without a video of someone being beaten by the
police in the street, and thousands of bloggers pick it up instantly.

If I were a corrupt officer I would fear a horde of a thousand angry bloggers
with video as proof more than a single journalist that has the home number of
a local judge.

~~~
swombat
Until they make filming the police illegal, like they have in the UK...

~~~
mixmax
Would an amateur clip of someone being beaten by the police be inadmissible as
evidence in court?

~~~
swombat
No, but it's unlikely to exist if filming it means _you_ get beaten up by the
police too.

~~~
xiaoma
cameras are getting smaller

~~~
Devilboy
But cops are getting bigger...

------
njharman
The power here seems to be the district judge who was willing to actually do
their job.

When just the reporter tried after the judge had retired reporter was ignored
like everyone else.

------
jwb119
<http://baltimorecrime.blogspot.com/>

------
omnivore
Online news can be localized. Forums like these can be easily retrofitted for
the hyper local and give people lots of things relevant to their area, rather
than having to sift through the trash of news to find the morsels you want.

------
arran
I think the best model at the moment for funding journalism is to allow people
to contribute part of their tax contribution to a news organisation of their
choice. Then the only cost you would incur is the effort of filling in a form.
The news organisations become responsible to the population instead of
advertisers whilst some sort of market forces remain. Effectively you'd be
saying to anyone who contributes taxes "here's $100 dollars, which news
organisation do you want to support".

Effective journalism is important to a democracy and it should be funded in as
democratic manner as possible.

------
int2e
It looks like some newspaper replacements are doing a fine job watching the
gov (and the gov's money): [http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/01/tmz-story-forces-
bank-to-retur...](http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/01/tmz-story-forces-bank-to-
return-1-6-billion/)

------
hapless
Correlation/Causation problem: The police are getting away with these policies
not because journalists aren't there to watch them, but because ordinary
citizens no longer give a damn.

The newspapers are desperate for a reason to exist.

------
nazgulnarsil
the police only "need to be watched" because the police have no incentive
structure to serve the people. their paycheck does not rely on how well they
serve your community. It relies on how well they comply with federal
regulators.

------
FlorinAndrei
Millions of citizens with camera-equipped cell phones linked to Twitter. ;-)

------
sachinag
For fuck's sake, the Huffington Post asked a question at President Obama's
first presser. There will always be a vigorous press in this country - it's
just a matter if the legacy media wants to get their act together enough to be
a part of that in the future.

At the very, very least, new organizations free of legacy costs will step up.
In Chicago, the Chi-Town Daily News (<http://www.chitowndailynews.org/>) is
one of them. They've got a bunch of citizen journalists, supplemented by a
handful of paid staff.

Journalists are called to the vocation the same way that artists, musicians,
priests, and others are called to theirs.

~~~
swombat
Obama's press conference is national news. This article is arguing about the
lack of local coverage.

The Huffington Post doesn't have the desire nor ability to chase up on some
local police shooting, unless it really, really stands out as a potentially
big, national story.

A local daily newspaper, with a staff of investigative journalists some of
whom are dedicated to watching the police, does. None (or almost none) of
those stories will make national headlines (and so they're not suitable for
national papers), but they most certainly make a huge difference to local
life.

Personally, I don't think the solution is to have newspapers watching the
police. I think the solution is that all police officers at work should be
permanently under watch via a justin.tv kind of system. Maybe with one day of
delay (to prevent "the bad guys" from being able to tell that the police are
on their way to their place), but no more. And this should most likely be
administered by a third party with the power to have police officers docked if
they refuse to hand over full recordings (so probably by a sub-department of
the DoJ).

~~~
sachinag
No, it's about recognizing that online-only organizations are worthy parts of
the reporting infrastructure. Some day - and hopefully soon - Mayor Daley will
call upon a reporter from the Chi-Town Daily News.

The HuffPo is fascinating - they provide an outlet for 9/11 truthers and their
own paid reporters on the same platform. And the President of the United
States recognizes such a brand as worthy of engagement. People run for local
school boards for a reason - don't underestimate local citizen journalism just
yet.

And cops already have cameras in their squad cars; many cities are already
awash in CCTVs.

But there's something that David Simon says that's really interesting - he's
fighting for a document. A paper document. That's the sort of stuff that
EveryBlock and Public.Resource.org are fighting to free. And Carl's trying to
get the GPO job: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=498610>

------
tomjen
Alex Jones.

And it is not like the newspapers are aggressive against the government, they
let them get away with way too much.

~~~
vaksel
Hardly, noone knows of Alex Jones except for his small group of followers on
the internet, and since he is known for exaggerating the crap out of things,
noone else takes him seriously...so he can report that a cop executed a 5 year
old girl, and people would need video proof before they believe him

------
MaysonL
People like this organization: <http://www.chitowndailynews.org/>

------
Anon84
Bloggers and the twitterati

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Read the article. I don't see bloggers and twitterati having the same social
impact as a crime beat reporter with a circuit court judge's card in his
wallet. All you're going to get from that is photos, opinion, and a lot of
waving and yelling. Stuff like "secret police videos". I don't see much crime
analysis, deep reporting, and investigative news from those formats. I might
be wrong, though. Does anybody know of serious in-depth crime reporting that's
come from blogs? (I'm not even going to use "in-depth" and "twitter" in the
same breath)

~~~
lacker
Talking Points Memo has done some good in-depth reporting. For example they
helped expose a lot of the scandal around U.S. attorneys being fired. I think
they also started the scandal around Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's birthday
party.

I guess this is not "crime reporting" in the Baltimore Sun sense. A lot more
bloggers will go after national news, since it's more common for blogs to have
a national audience. Blogging just isn't organized around the city level like
journalism is.

~~~
brandnewlow
My startup, The Windy Citizen is a social news site for Chicago. When Citizen
journalists post something to their blogs, they submit it to the Windy Citizen
and Chicagoans can vote it up and check it out. We're sending 50-100 readers
to the sites that crack the front page right now...and those stories are then
showing up in the local papers since reporters and editors are reading us.

3 years from now there will be hundreds of local blogs in every U.S. city. We
need "interesting-ness" filters for this stuff just like we need filters for
tech blogs and political blogs right now.

If there's anyone out there interested in chipping in some tech expertise to
help out (I'm a journalist and am bootstrapping this) I'm all ears.

~~~
MaysonL
Check out these guys: <http://www.chitowndailynews.org/>

------
newt0311
I have always found this curious: In general, criminals cause significantly
more damage than police. Then where is the outcry against politicians who are
soft on crime and thus allow these increased rates of crime?

Thats what I am really worried about. That without good newspapers,
politicians who allow an increase in crime through their policies will go
unaccountable. (Whether that is already a problem is a matter of much debate).

------
nir
Why, Reddit will! (for visiting Redditors: </sarcasm> :)

