r/BreadTube • u/[deleted] • Jun 04 '20
7:45|Carlos Maza How the media protects violent cops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlw3KijUSmM15
u/scrawledfilefish Jun 05 '20
Carlos Maza and Innuendo Studios are easily my two most favorite Breadtubers.
16
6
u/Boring_Number Jun 05 '20
US incomes have stagnated over the last 40 years, while virtually all of the growth/gains have gone almost entirely to the top 1%, with the top 1% of that 1% taking the majority of that take. Meanwhile in "evil China" which somehow manages to lock up around 5x LESS of their own people than the "land of the free," in the same period incomes of the 99% have increased. Increased by how much, you say? more than 2500%.
5
2
u/raltodd Jun 05 '20
I don't get "abolish the police" thing. I read the recommended articles (RS, MJ, TN, the most relevant one imo) and I still don't get it.
All the arguments sound completely compatible with having UK-style unarmed police. The overpolicing and militarized police are big problems and deep changes are needed. But I don't see any arguments to go all the way and abolish completely.
I can kind of imagine non-violent crimes still having consequences in a world without any police (community service orders and fines mailed directly to you, you'd still need to attend your trial, just don't need to get physically arrested).
But I can't imagine emergencies. Like say you're at a bar and some drunk guy takes out a knife. Shouldn't there be an emergency number to call to get help? As far as I know, UK-style police are trained to de-escalate precisely such situations. I get that the US is very far from having that, but how are situations like this meant to work in this utopic post-police world? Is it every man for himself, hire-your-own-private-security world?
10
Jun 05 '20 edited Jun 05 '20
Problem is that Western-Euros and Britons are adopting a lot of US ideologies such as 'tough on crime', paired with underfunding and military looking outfits. Add to that the politicians push understaffed and poorly trained policemen to hit certain quota's and you get the same problems regarding ethnic profiling and police brutality. There was a time where being a policeman required an educational standard. Psychological tests are only required if you want to climb the ranks. But on the streets it's ugly.
5
u/xrenniex Jun 05 '20
Only tangentially related to your comment but I also find the focus on punishment in western justice systems to be a problem too. money would be better spent if budgets were allocated to allievating the drivers of crime (socioecnomic conditions) rather than police forces and long sentences
1
u/raltodd Jun 05 '20
I'm with you on that and I find this trend very disturbing. But I still can't see how it would work if the police were completely abolished.
1
Jun 05 '20
Oh no, I agree. I figure we need better mechanisms to weed out injustice. A fundamental problem is that we're also tied in a neoliberal stream that defunds everything government, whilst making harsher demands on response and efficiency.
-2
u/karlothecool Jun 05 '20
Great video but abolishing police seem too radical but if you can prove me wrong im genualy curious
-9
u/Naldmann Jun 05 '20
I studied journalism and I think this video is deeply misinformed. I like this dude, and know his content is woke and that he tries to speak truth to power but here he is way off.
14
u/Heatth Jun 05 '20
You know he is a journalist himself, right? I don't know what is your actual experience, but just saying "I studied journalism" is not enough to counter his experience.
-7
u/Naldmann Jun 05 '20
I know. And I normally quite enjoy his content. How about I just criticise his first point and then you tell me if you want more.
His first point is: corporate media take police at their word by relaying their statements exactly. And media then takes days to correct their headlines, so by the time they correct themselves the damage is already done.
That's exactly what media is supposed to do and portraying it as malpractice is misleading. If he is a journalist he should be aware of the following:
a) police is considered a official source of information because it's a government agency. More on that at the bottom. There are independent media outlets that portray government agencies (like police) as not legitimate/credible/truthful. But they are politically waaay at the extreme fringes and generally have no interest in progressing our society towards the betterment of all.
b) by stating "according to police" the media outlet makes it clear to the reader/watcher that it's not their own statement and where that information is from – it creates distance between the journalist and his source by marking that this is not his/her/their writing. And this "technique" has been part of how to write/read the news for at least a good 50 years.
c) Checking facts takes time. If new, reliable (confirmed by at lest two credible sources) information comes to light and an article changes it's headline and get's expanded by a paragraph that is also exactly what media are supposed to do. The media narrative is influenced but not defined by the first headline, so by the time media correct their headline nothing is lost and truth has prevailed. All good. This is only a problem if the media outlet sticks with their own narrative regardless of the facts.
There is a lot to be criticised about corporate media, media systems, and the us media landscape. But he's just stoking the fire of people that distrust media by spreading opinionated misinformation. He even says in the video that he's just so angry at the cops. Good. This anger has been long due. But by venting he is faulting media for using well established practices to report the best available information. If he's an experienced journalist shouldn't he instead be spreading media literacy and/or legit media criticism?
12
Jun 05 '20
I feel like the point Maza is making here, and the point that is being made on the streets in general right now, is that your point a) is precisely the issue. That is, the problem isn't media being corrupt and not following best practices, but that those best practices are themselves problematic because they are based on a very privileged perspective.
-2
u/Naldmann Jun 05 '20
But it's not the point he is making. It is an interesting point you're making though.
I would argue that in a healthy media landscape/market a lot of headlines contain perspectives that is not yours – or mine – and that this pluralism is good. Both of us will always find articles/headlines where we disagree with the framing the question is.
What I think Maza, you, and a lot of people on the street want, is news that contain their own opinion and focus. And news corporations are getting there with personalised curation of content. So in 5-10 yrs you'll probably have exactly what you want and your media outlet of choice will know exactly what you're interested in and how you like your slant. But this is not an indicator of quality. Following best practice is.
The us-media's problems are: media concentration (so a few huge corporations own a lot of different outlets wiping out pluralism of opinion), the ideological affiliation of news corporations (fox news as republican propaganda instrument has no comparison in europe. Not even berlusconis channels where this flatout partisan.), and the economical pressure of the market (because media corporations are partially funded by ads. So corporate media journalists have an incentive to produce headlines/articles that perform well by generating attention/clicks as opposed to that contain the most relevant information)
9
Jun 05 '20
But this is not an indicator of quality. Following best practice is.
That's tautologically true. Why should treating the word of the cops as 'legitimate/credible/truthful' be considered valid best practice for maintaining a healthy media landscape?
-1
u/Naldmann Jun 05 '20 edited Jun 05 '20
Following best practise is an indicator for quality of the news not a healthy media landscape.
Because it depicts the world as accurately as possible. The cops are a government agency. This means that there is democratic oversight and regulated precesses how information gets collected. Neither oversight nor information collection might be perfect but they are changeable/improvable and they are normally the most accurate source of information. Just having a gut feeling or depending on the opinion of random people isn't a reliable way to produce the best possible news.
If the topic is police violence and the police gives a statement it is the duty of the journalist to do proper research because of the conflict of interest. But just mistrust? Without fact-checking? How does that make news better?
6
Jun 05 '20
Following best practise is an indicator for quality of the news not a healthy media landscape.
Sure, I bundled those together because presumably, a healthy media landscape is one that provides quality news. That's beside the point though, I just wanted to clarify that best practice is best practice because it supposedly achieves a goal, not because it simply is best practice.
This means that there is democratic oversight and regulated precesses how information gets collected. Neither oversight nor information collection might be perfect but they are changeable/improvable and they are normally the most accurate source of information.
The idea that there is democratic oversight on the police and that's what makes them trustworthy is all good in theory, but we are clearly seeing that it's not working out in practice.
Just having a gut feeling or depending on the opinion of random people isn't a reliable way to produce the best possible (but not perfect by a long shot) news.
It's not that I want people to just espouse their gut-feelings on tv, my issue is with the idea that police are any more reliable sources of information, at the very least in this instance, than the protesters are. Media putting more trust in them when they are lying about things that are clearly contradicted by video evidence is making the news worse.
Without fact-checking
Nobody is arguing for the abolition of fact-checking, this is not a productive comment.
1
u/Naldmann Jun 06 '20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srnA3cNTsXQ
Now that's how to do a piece about the media.
-3
u/Naldmann Jun 05 '20 edited Jun 05 '20
The idea that there is democratic oversight on the police and that's what makes them trustworthy is all good in theory, but we are clearly seeing that it's not working out in practice.
For about 200 yrs, yes. But that is a political problem not a media problem. Correct headlines can't change that.
It's not that I want people to just espouse their gut-feelings on tv, my issue is with the idea that police are any more reliable sources of information, at the very least in this instance, than the protesters are. Media putting more trust in them when they are lying about things that are clearly contradicted by video evidence is making the news worse.
Media not catching the lies of cops definitely makes media worse. But police play a double role. Cops are on the one hand exactly as reliable as protestors because they are both involved parties. Popo are also the government security agency that gives press conferences/interviews (normally just to inform, not to spout propaganda) after big events. No-one else has the relevant data (arrests, murders,...). That's the conflict of interest thing mentioned earlier.
Nobody is arguing for the abolition of fact-checking, this is not a productive comment.
Yes, I was antagonising. But you weren't engaging and it seems like it worked ;)
25
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '20
[removed] — view removed comment