This is going far 2

[Egeides]

When I brang an article from Salon.com saying that the Miami police went too far, a few from our forums answered that they'd need sources. Well I found one, article + video:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/21/1521259

The Salon article was at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/index.html (you can use a daily pass at the end of the article to read it)

To resume a part, it is saying that there were some illegal arrests, some people beaten when they were no threat to anyone, a woman journalist put naked in front of an officer (since he turned around once she was naked) while journalists were not supposed to be arrested, a selectivity of which journalists to arrest or not, etc, etc.

I don't have a computer strong enough to look at the video, so I have no idea what this video is showing and I wont even be able to comment before a few weeks, but I hope that it will show to American if their media had portrayed the Miami protest well or not.

Make your own idea; personally I saw Salon saying some things when others would say them only months after while laughing at them in the meantime (about Bush, etc.), Salon didn't got problems with its sources to my knowledge, got prizes, etc. So I have no specific reason to bring doubts on these information more than others.

[Acriku]

I read Scahill's "The Miami Model" and it looked disappointingly subjective against the police force. It put the tens of thousands of protesters as angels, and the police force as demons, with the Police Commissioner Timoney as the Anti-Christ. I'm not really satisfied with your corroborating article, as I find it a little curious and suspicious that it is a very scarce event. With tens of thousands of protesters, and with the meeting of up to 34 ministers from other countries, and the large police force, you would think that there'd be a lot more coverage. Police brutality at this level would be a huge story, and yet it is hardly anywhere to be seen. Nothing on the television, nothing in the paper (and my paper is the Orlando Sentinel, close to Miami), and yet two independent journalist papers made an article of it. I don't know, it just doesn't add up.

I don't have realplayer, so perhaps someone could shed a light on what the video contains.

Also, there are laws against police brutality, covered by the state of Florida. Here's an excerpt of the "Early Identification of Police Brutality and Misconduct: The Metro-Dade Police Department Model":

As a result of these [police brutality] incidents, the Metro-Dade Board of County Commissioners enacted on January 22, 1980, local legislation mandating public access to internal investigations conducted by the Metro-Dade Police Department. In addition to access to investigative files, an Employee Profile System was adopted. The Employee Profile System tracked complaints, use of force incidents, commendations, discipline, and dispositions of all internal investigations. This local mandate was based on Florida's Public Records Law adopted in 1979 under Florida State Statute 119.07. In essence, the mandate opened any and all public records to review, and, upon their completion, investigations relating to excessive force, police brutality, and misconduct.

Note/emphasis added by me for clarification of context.

Make your own idea; personally I saw Salon saying some things when others would say them only months after while laughing at them in the meantime (about Bush, etc.), Salon didn't got problems with its sources to my knowledge, got prizes, etc. So I have no specific reason to bring doubts on these information more than others.

You're not getting the point. It's their article, so the burden of proof lies on them. Just because they had no trouble with sources, reported anyway, does not mean it hasn't or can't happen. New York Times had a first time, and there was also no reason to give any doubt to them before then.

In essence, for such a dramatic and widespread event (tens of thousands of protestors, etc) there needs to be more than two articles reporting it for me to gather what really happened and if anything was exaggerated or simply lied about. I'm a skeptic at heart.

[Gobalopper]

I watched the first 5-10 minutes and for me it just made the protesters look stupid. I mean sure they have a right to protest but those people were looking for trouble. Who goes to a protest with a gas mask if they aren't looking for trouble? And why do they provoke the police and get right up in their face? I thought they were protesting the conference?

[Wolf]

http://www.brain-terminal.com/ for more protestors acting silly. If you go to the Protest Warrior site, you'll find instances where protestors tried to censor, pen-up, and even attack those who disagreed with them. Protest Warrior inserted about 100 people with pro-war and extremely patriotic, or extremely sarcastic signs that disagreed with the largely anti-war protestors. The anti-war protestors reacted extremely poorly, and did their best to shotu out, swear at, attack, or otherwise deman their political opponents. Whether or not this adds argument to the pro-war lobby, it does say something. I recall reading an article allegedly by Tony Parsons (I think that's his name) of the UK Mirror. He said something to the effect of "I used to be anti-war. Now I see the people who are anti-war, and I seriously reconsider my position."

I'm not saying anything about my own politics here, just analyzing what's going on.

[Egeides]

Acriku: The burden of proof DOES fall on Salon, but expectation doesn't need a complete proof since it is not a demonstration. All an expectation is about is to look if we have elements bringing to expect something to be true. I never said I was able to show what's there is true, but it would just not surprise me since:

1- In the 60s, lot of stuff that wasn't correct happened

2 In the past, some people got there camera, computer and so on taken by the police as "elements of proof", not getting back their stuff, even when it's pro cameras. So it'd seem as a normal scale of violence

3 The Patriot Act did worst when it emprisoned people for months without any proof, so it's not like if we were in a completely stable contry

4- Salon isn't known for shouting any stuff they find, and DemocracyNow people have their share of international journalism prizes for their coverage, etc.

Nothing of this is a proof, it only brings me to wonder and SEARCH for a proof. I found this video, but I can't look at it so have no idea what it's about. About SOME protestors acting silly (provocative, violent...), it wouldn't be the first time but it often goes from both sides (SOME violence/provocation also on police side).

[Wolf]

The purpose of the media is to keep the politicans honest. If the mainstream media of the modern day sees a true violation of the rights of dissenters, it WILL report it. That type of story is SO sensational, they cannot afford NOT to report it. People tell me that the mainstream media is baised -- and that it is not so. The mainstream media is freer -- and more powerful -- than it has ever been. Since TV news and radio news were FORCED to start making profits, I can trust CNN to boisterously wave any facts it has in my face if those acts are sensational. Police beating protestors! Stop the presses! The fact that the mainstream media has NOT reported protestor beatings at all -- or protests in the least -- leads me to believe that certain politically-minded organizations are going out of their way to show what they feel the world needs to see. This is not necessarily wrong, but it often leads to manufacturing "truth". And an injustice is done. Thus, I am inclined to be extremely skeptical towards Salon, and will relinquish this skepticism only when proof becomes so loudly touted and so plainly obvious that the blind can see it. Besides, is not "questioning" the primary tenet of liberalism? Is it not patriotic to question? Why is it that more and more, as the days go by, left-minded folk dislike being questioned? Is that not the CORE of their beliefs? For many people I have encountered, there exists a certain hypocrisy. It is okay to question the government, but never, ever, question the questioning of the gov't, or where their facts of governmental evil are coming from. To do that would to be a blind, stupid, and propaganda-fed sheep! The double-standard offends me. Again, as I have stated before, should the political left make questioning its core tenet, then it must be CONSISTENT. Let itself be questioned. If dissent is patriotic, let people dissent agaisnt THE DISSENTERS. For those of you who are like me -- an independent, in the middle -- does it not make you feel a little uneasy seeing people who make questioning their sacrosanct edict, protesting their way of speech, turn on the very questioning and protest of those who would question and protest against them? It should, because it is hypocrisy. This is not to say that the right is innocent because of the mistakes made by their opponents. The burden is on the right to defend what they have done (an example would be Bush and Iraq). However, there is a burden on the left -- the burden to retain the coherency of ideals and not succumbing to simply wanting to be the antithesis of their enemy. If that occurs, there is no real change, we only remain on the same wheel that was spinning long before we were born. Since many left-minded people have expressed their desire to "remake the system" to "halt the cycle", then they must devote themselves to making their ideals and their methods coherent, rather than doing battle with their enemies.

Lastly, "3 The Patriot Act did worst when it emprisoned people for months without any proof, so it's not like if we were in a completely stable contry"

I was not aware that CANADA had adopted the Patriot Act. Egeides, could you clarify what you meant when you referred to "we" not being in a completely stable country?

[TMA_1]

word, protesters indeed go too far, and salon has never really filled my expectations. People have told me iti s a good news source, but it is just as biased as any out there.

[Egeides]

TMA:

I agree that Salon isn't perfect, but I do not believe it is espescially biased. I think that the ideal newspaper would present views that aren't grouped in a certain range of opinions but the problem seems to be that since the mass medias take all the journalists that are of a certain type, the ones that are left are anyway pretty much the dissidents... And in some cases these ones were fired or excluded, like Greg Palast (leftish, and Pulitzer Prize).

About bias, I am not sure what you call "biased" though. If you mean that they have an opinion about what should be published or not, and are taking a position on this subject, well I think we're stuck with humans anyway and someone always needs to make this choice :P

Wolfwiz:

I don't think that dissidents are all accepting critics more than anyone else. Whattever the position of a society, you'll always find some that will accept to comment and debate though. About the mass medias, well in the past they showed many times to follow the statu quo in certain circumstances. For example, who denounced colonialism? They were not talking about what was happening in India before Ghandi almost made it necessary. It takes alot more than just a few saying a thing to make it to the mass medias. In the 60s, the medias didn't put what the FBI was doing, against Luther King for example. Just after 9/11, some journalists were fired after simply writing something not in favor of Bush, a nobel prize of litterature can't get a journalist job, etc etc. (some of this from www.gregpalast.com <-- Pullitzer Prize)

What I think is that it doesn't pay at all to put a scandal in the newspaper if it lowers the newspaper's credibility. Right now, if a newspaper was puting something like this, it could have the others (governmental answers, medias...) on its back and get less readers/advertisers.

[Wolf]

Can you provide some references or instances in which a journalist was fired for being anti-Bush? I'd really be interested in knowing all of the facts concerning incidents of that type. If you have proof, that would be great.

[Egeides]

I read that a loooong time ago. The journalists, as I recall, had written that she was doubtful of Bush, which apparently the editors didn't appreciated since they wished journalists witing something else. I'll search a bit when I'll have some time.

Give it the value you wish: I also personally talked to a journalist that works since a few decades and he said to me that it wouldn't be possible to write about certain things without getting the editor saying that it's not what he wants in his paper. Some examples that were given to me are:

- Canadian banks being a "bit" too opened to money laundering (it seems that some banks accept people coming with bags full of money)

- Who is selling weapons to who, which this second person (a proxy) sells it to dictators and so on. Of course, I'd guess you can have many proxies

The journalist isn't a war specialist or anything, but is a well recognized (in his environment) as an art and more specifically opera ctitique (but he did/does other things and generally keeps in touch with all kinds of things, is on the field, etc.). It's someone I know since years. Think what you want about it.