Discussion:
Media Corruption: Sacramento Bee Pulls Story/Photos of Looters to Protect Criminals' Identities
(too old to reply)
b***@gmail.com
2020-08-03 17:34:35 UTC
Permalink
So a bunch of thugs went wild in Sacramento and looted and torched
multiple businesses and the the newspaper reported on it. Apparently
this upset the looters and thugs because it helped identify who they
were. So the local grievance group complained to the newspaper, which
pulled down the story and the photos to please them rather tell them
them to pound sand, which is what a news organization should do when
someone tries to censor them.
The story included surveillance photographs of people suspected
of vandalizing stores in downtown Sacramento following a night
of protests against police brutality.
Members of the community asked that the story-- and the
photographs-- be removed from our website the next day and we
did so. We apologize for the harm that publishing those photos
may have caused.
The harm they caused? The harm?!?!
The *harm* was the innocent store owners who were stolen from and
had their livelihoods destroyed by animals. But now we're apologizing
to the animals for harming *them* by showing them committing the
crimes.
This sad excuse for a newspaper also says they will no longer use the
word 'looter' or 'looting' because it's racist. It's not, of course,
that's simply a lie-- anyone of any race can and has looted-- but
since in the most recent cases, it was black people doing the
looting, the word must now be declared racist so that critics of
this lawless behavior can be silenced from talking about it under
threat of being declared raaaaccciiiist.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article244097082.html
Yes, deprecating 'looter' as racist is racist. But withholding
photographs that imply criminality, pre-trial, seems correct.
It's absurd to say that the media shouldn't even report on-- they
pulled the whole story down, not just photographs, remember-- let
alone show pics and footage of crimes in progress just because
the people who are committing the crimes are stupid enough to be
DOING IT ON CAMERA.
The presumption of innocence pertains to the burden of proof the state
must meet to take away a person's freedom or property. It has no
relevance to how the public at large must treat one another. Never in
the 200+ years of this country's existence has it been seriously
suggested that the media be gagged from pre-trial crime reporting, let
alone that the media should gag itself.
Even OJ Simpson's most ardent supporters never claimed it was
inappropriate for the media to report on the story or cover his trial
pre-verdict.
If I were ruling on it, I think I'd be asking (myself) whether the
photographs contain information that the public has a valid interest in,
beyond gawking. (And, I'm wondering why identities can't be masked.)
Why should they be masked?
You didn't ask during Halloween pathological liar, so what's it to you now? Mind your own business, instead of the newspapers'.
If I have a picture of a shitbag hurling a
Molotov cocktail through a storefront, why should he be given the
courtesy of having his identity masked? If you don't want to be
plastered all over the news committing crime, there's a 100% effective
way of guaranteeing that never happens to you: don't go out and commit
crime. You choose to do that and you get whatever comes with it.
Including the paper siding WITH you. Never expected that did you?
And regardless of the thug's criminal trial, it gives the INNOCENT
Wrong. A trial on who's innocent or guilty hasn't occurred yet.
store owner a place to start to pursue a civil claim against the > guy who destroyed his property. Why aren't we more concerned
about restitution for the victim than worrying about how a
criminal's picture in the paper might make his life more
difficult for him?
If this claim is true, have you gotten up from your beer and called the paper and asked?
And yes, the public most certainly has an interest in a night of rioting
and lawlessness in their city, along with how the city government
responded (or purposely didn't respond, as the case may be).
They also have NO interest in your far right views.
Lawrence Solomon
2020-08-03 19:54:08 UTC
Permalink
On 8/1/2020 2:10 PM, BT
Pictures of trump are everywhere and he's a criminal.

Loading...