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
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.
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.
And look at how great the Baltimore Sun has made Baltimore.
My point: the idea that the old order has to be preserved because the new order is not up to the task carries a lot more water if the old order is functioning effectively.
Why is this comment being voted down? Just because it contains the word "4chan"? The notion that the lowly and despised 4chan is actually holding the Government accountable is a perfectly fair point.
I just voted it down myself but I'm sure it will be voted up again.
The unexamined fallacy that I saw in the post was the idea that TV stations engage in hard hitting news at the level of the local newspaper reporting. Internet outlets can publicize local stories if the original stories exist. The original article's point remains: without newspaper digging there would be no local story, especially no credible local story.
The problem would be worst in smaller cities like Baltimore.
Those incidents usually don't get reported. In a situation where its your word against a cop's, the cop is always given preference. I can honestly say that I don't think I can remember reading a single "bad cop" story that didn't have video evidence
It's only one story, but it includes lots of bad cops. One newspaper reporter. And no video.
Yes, there was an overheard conversation on the police radio. But that was 'hearsay' evidence. Not something that was copied (at least to my knowledge).
Edit: NO, it doesn't qualify. The conversation was recorded. Thanks for making the point.
+ 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