Bias

Jeff Wiehe of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette wrote one of the more slanted stories I’ve seen in awhile. This isn’t Republican v. Democrat. Rather, the Journal Gazette wanted access to video tapes of an incident involving a police chase that resulted in the shooting death of the suspect.

The Journal Gazette complained to the public access counselor when the tapes were withheld, and the public access counselor decided the public records laws allowed the Fort Wayne police to withhold the information. The news story that resulted wasn’t so much informative as it was a bitch fest by the Journal Gazette about not getting what it wanted.

“There may be a problem with the law,” said Tracy Warner, editorial page editor of The Journal Gazette. “There seems to be no deadline on how long investigatory materials can be kept from the public.”

Or maybe it’s not a problem, but a feature. Perhaps the General Assembly included the investigatory exception to the public access laws for law enforcement agencies to encourage forthrightness during criminal investigations without fear that whatever is disclosed will be splashed over the public news. Opinions can differ on whether the exception ought to apply to this police video — but that doesn’t strike me as “a problem with the law.” (Incidentally, if I were the paper, notwithstanding the public access counselor opinion — I would argue in court that the video was a public record before it was part of an investigation and, therefore, ought not to be exempt. Not sure it would work, but it seems like a fruitful angle. Tracy Warner, in the article, seems to be ahead of me on this thought.)

But, back to the article’s bias:
#City paid “what it called” an independent consultant.
#Makes sure to note the consultant’s report absolving the city is merely a one page report.
#Scare quotes used around “investigatory” a number of times.
#Quotes from people who disagree with the ruling, no note of whether people who agree with the ruling were available for or declined comment.
#Quote from “local businessman” whose connection with suspect/victim is unclear with no particular training or expertise who says he’s seen the tape and the “death should never have happened and that no police officers were in harm’s way.”

Overall, the article seems designed to lead to the conclusion that the police wrongfully killed a man and now they are acting wrongfully to cover up their shadiness. Maybe that’s the case. But, maybe, just maybe, the public access laws are being faithfully adhered to here; aside from the public access laws, the police
are in a litigation posture because of the civil suit that legitimately calls for limited distribution of the evidence, and the situation was such that the police officer was acting in an objectively reasonable fashion when he fired the shots. But the alternative is not really suggested by the article, and I get the sense that the reason the alternative is not suggested is because people at the newspaper are irritated about not getting the tape they wanted.

Update A shorter, more neutral version of the story is here.