I don't disagree. I guess my argument is to the degree that I agree.
(If that makes any sense)
By it's very nature, Effective Law Enforcement requires a bit of privileged information, secrecy, and privacy. You don't what the criminals to know what you know. Nor do you want victim's information to be made public. If the Victim wants it made public the victim him/herself can contact the media.
The Advocate, and a vocal amount of Advocate.com users are being very outspoken about a recent abduction and escape by a person from our local H.E.B. parking lot.
The story printed by the Advocate has little in the way of details. The people are clamoring for more. I understand their want and to a degree their need to know more.
Our local police department (at least on the level of the average cop on the street) I cannot speak for Upper Management) Just those who I know who work the streets, Have a very low regard for the Advocate in general. The reporting is often low quality and several of their reporters cannot correctly quote a person to save their life! The biggest culprit of that was one Leslie Wilber who was assigned the police/accident beat. IT was so bad that officers started refusing to cooperate with her. She could go open records request the case but they themselves would not talk with her.
Though many have complained about her, Chris Cobler, the Advocate Editor refused to acknowledge the problem and banned from post (myself included) those who spoke up on the matter (Advocate can brook no criticism).
Mysteriously now Leslie is gone. There is a new girl on her beat and from what I gather is doing a good job though she is new and makes some errors between what she reports and what officers told her. It's a learning experience though. She'll learn.
Or become like Leslie.
I give all this back story to set this up.
I don't think this editorial is all that much about the abduction case as it is an attack on local PD and their strained relation with the Advocate reporters.
Take this for example:
We understand not naming the victim in this attempted kidnapping, but we're not
sure about not naming the location or the victim's gender. After all, the
perpetrator certainly knows the location and that police are investigating the
crime. We doubt he would go back to that place.
The Advocate knows full well were it took place though they (the Advocate) did not mention it in their article. Advocate had reporters on scene interviewing people who were there, The H.E.B. parking lot on Rio Grande.
Advocate failed to mention it, though there were plenty of clues as to where it was in the article. As one poster responding to others asking where stated: "How many locations on Rio Grande would you be putting groceries in your car?"
A couple of years back, I don't remember exactly when but it was around the same time as the Citizen's Hospital property fiasco with City Attorney Smith and the City Councils vote (or failure to Vote) on the sale of it (or purchase of it). During this time there was a call by to POLICE DEPARTMENT to have a single point of contact, a media spokesperson. The Police were concerned because of the poor reporting and misquotes that regularly happened in the paper.
The Victoria Advocate was AGAINST just such a thing. They wanted to get their information straight from the officers on scene. they resented the allegations police were making concerning reporters like Leslie Wilber.
Now they are all for the spokesperson. Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
We wonder why publication of the location of this attempted kidnapping
couldn't be publicized for the benefit of residents here. Often times, residents
can come to the aid of police in such investigations. We do believe in community
policing.
Mr. Cobler if you are listening, The police believe in community policing as well. The problem is in how you vs the police define community policing. Your Idea (and much of the outspoken people on the Advocate.com site) is in reality, civilians getting in the way of investigations. The Police idea of community policing is if any persons have information regarding the crime, they can contact the police.
Two comments in the article get more at the heart of what the Advocate is thinking. And it ties in with the recent topic concerning the switch to digital (and encrypted) radios for the City police, EMS, and Fire.
We are concerned about not getting information from law enforcement about
criminal cases.
We understand to a degree, but we worry that at some time in the future we will
report a crime in the newspaper that is two weeks old. The public has a right to
know what is going on in the community and in an expedient manner.
Chief Ure has already stated to the Advocate that they have no intention of cutting the media out of the loop once the switchover comes and current scanners become useless. The problem is the Advocate expects everything to be handed to them on a silver platter rather than doing the legwork themselves. I have had several dealings with one of their "Star" reporters, Gabe Semenza. My personal opinion of him is that he wants you to literally GIVE him the story rather than he investigate it.
Advocate,
Stop trying to rile the public against the police. You did that with your editorial campaign against the encryption. And as I stated, you did the public a disservice as well as endangered officers lives. How in the hell you sleep at night I will never know.
We have enough boneheaded cop-haters and conspiracy nut jobs that think the police as a whole (not individuals) are nothing more than a gang of criminals themselves hellbent on taking away all rights. We don't need self serving idiots like your editors riling them up of giving them more cannon-fodder.
No comments:
Post a Comment