Over the past week I found myself rather focused on the details of the incident in Buffalo involving the elderly man pushed to the ground and left to bleed by riot cops. The facts are as stated. Two officers were suspended pending an investigation for their role in the incident.
Most major TV news outlets reported that fifty-seven officers resigned from the emergency task force after the two officers were suspended. You’ll know this by now, but for clarity’s sake it’s worth pointing out that they did not resign from their jobs. They remained fully employed but would no longer take part in the voluntary emergency task force. CNN among others framed the mass resignation as an expression of solidarity with the two officers suspended. The union representative echoed this and invoked the Nuremberg defense, saying the police were simply following orders to clear the square. If police were going to be punished for following orders, the union reasoned, police should no longer take part in the task force.
A key piece of this decision, downplayed by the union in their statement, is that the union would no longer cover officers’ legal fees for lawsuits associated with the protests. Considering this fact, one sees the resignation more as a move based on self preservation. Suspension for misconduct is a part of the job, but liability for misconduct is another story. How might they act if they were directly accountable for their actions? We see that a choice not to act is the course chosen by most.
My complaint is that this fact of revoked financial support was deliberately excluded from reporting in order to amplify the message of solidarity, thus fueling the already justifiable outrage expressed by the public over police brutality. I understand that this notion in itself is a debatable issue. What was the primary factor in the mass resignation? Did many news providers deliberately exclude information that would help readers consider that question? I would say that they did. All of the information was released in the statement. Thus, many media outlets chose to exclude the information regarding union reneged support for lawsuits. Anyway, that’s where I was focusing my energy, but it’s not what I want to concentrate on now.
In my estimation of the moment, there was no need to further sell the idea that police brutality is a major problem; that police must be more accountable for their actions; that the right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct; or even that that black lives matter. Although all of these issues need more amplification, current events sell those ideas very well without the help of biased reporting. Accuracy in reporting must be held to the highest standards in such important times. If we tacitly allow news media to distort details through our uncriticized consumption of said media, we open the door for greater distortion and provide fodder for anti-democratic and anti-journalistic forces to vilify journalism. At least, that was my position.
As I think about it more, I feel like one of those reporters who badgered Allen Iverson about his participation in practice. “Practice …” Iverson repeated. “We’re not talking about a game—not a game. . . . We’re talking about practice.” It does feel like I was trifling, albeit internally, over details. Was this really as big an issue as I made it out to be? Or was I unwittingly losing sight of the issues that truly mattered to argue about details that don’t really alter the larger truth. The red herring is a technique often used to control debate. The Tucker Carlsons of the world use it well. Tell them that rhinoceroses are running wild in the streets, and they will have you arguing over whether the rhinos are Asian or African and which are preferable.
I have to keep reminding myself to be skeptical and critical but also not to get lost in the details. Even so, the details of Iverson’s press conference are as great as he was. I know you have time to watch the whole thirty minutes.
Life's Rich Pageantry 