Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Fair enough. I guess the point I was trying to make, poorly, is that articles like this should be taken with a massive grain of salt considering that only one side of the story is being told and the other side can't refute anything that is said.
Oversight and transparency is key, but other than generating revenue for the news outlet, is there really a point in reporting a story like this, especially when the story will not contain all the facts? I can't wait until police are equipped with body cameras and that footage can be released publically. It will remove all bias from accusations and only show facts.
|
Are you equally critical of police giving press conferences blasting out details to the public at large (and the potential jury pool) where only their side of the story is told?
As to the reporting (generally) this is what the Alberta Court of Appeal has said about police misconduct:
Quote:
|
Because of the extraordinary powers they have to use force and to put restraints on liberty, the misconduct of police officers is always a matter of public interest.
|
It is important that allegations are reported as such, and distinguished from reporting conclusions (which is what we are saying in terms of waiting for ASIRT) but the reporting is vital for the public to be informed about the realities of things that occur in their communities.