Obfuscation and Abuse

Last night, the New York Times’ Brian Stelter tweeted about the Occupy Wall Street protests, which have been ongoing for over a week now, but seemed to reach a tipping point yesterday. Stelter wrote, “2 hours ago Union Sq was the scene of an ugly battle btwn #OccupyWallSt protesters & police,” followed by a link to a YouTube video entitled “Occupy Wall Street Police Abuse.” The video depicts officers shoving and arresting protesters, as well as using some kind of makeshift orange net to corral them into a pen.

I was struck by the term Stelter used to described the altercations: “battle”. As I understand it, if a “battle” is taking place, that means at least two aggressors are “battling” one another. Which would seem to be an odd characterization of yesterday’s events. I wasn’t there, but all the first-hand reports, news stories, video, and eyewitness testimonies suggest that the NYPD was quite clearly responsible for escalating tension, at least in certain instances — such as when several female protesters were indiscriminately maced in the face.

So I had a question for Stelter — what evidence indicated to him that a “battle” had taken place yesterday, or in other words, what evidence indicated that protesters had “battled” police? Again, the term “battle” implies the participation at least two parties, but there is no reason (as yet) to believe that protesters attacked police. Here’s what Stelter said in response: “I used the word “battle” in an attempt not to judge either side.”

Let’s think about this. “In an attempt not to judge either side,” Stelter characterized both sides as “battlers.” How is that not a judgment in of itself? There is clear evidence that police attacked protesters, but no evidence that protesters attacked police, yet Stelter casts both in exactly the same light because he presumably feels that upholding a sacred standard of impartiality is his prime journalistic duty. Even with video evidence available, Stelter shies away from accurately conveying what transpired, because it’s of paramount importance to remain “impartial,” no matter what, always.

This is a perfect manifestation of the pathology of objectivity. Stelter evidently was not interested in accurately portraying the facts. Rather, he obscured them.
~ from Brian Stelter and the Pathology of Objectivity by Michael Tracey ~

There are two issues the above snippet highlights: obfuscation and abuse. I have written quite a bit about my notion that objectivity is a myth, so I want to focus this post on the abuse angle.

While there always have been examples of police brutality, they have become endemic as of late. It seems that not a week goes by without at least one report of police forces manhandling someone -- too often these cases involve individuals who are not being physically aggressive toward the police or anyone else.

My blogging compatriot Ta-Wan recently was on the receiving end of such abuse for no good reason!!

What's going on here?

My theory is that the shoot-first (and, maybe, ask questions later) mentality of the US government and its allies is rubbing off on the rest of society. If our armed forces can attack other nations on flimsy or non-existent evidence, then why can't the police bludgeon peaceful demonstrators?

Hey, ya never know when one of those peaceniks might turnout to be -- or look like -- an ax murderer!