Seriously? Police Need Bayonets and Grenade Launchers?
Is this Ferguson, or Ramadi, Iraq?
In reaction to The Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, President Obama has limited the type of equipment police departments may acquire using federal funds. The new directive bans the distribution of some military-style equipment such as tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft or vehicles, ammunition of .50-caliber or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets, and camouflage uniforms. In addition, the President has placed restrictions on other equipment such as Humvees, manned aircraft, drones, battering rams, explosives, and specialized weapons. Law enforcement agencies will need to justify their need for this special equipment to their local government. The new report follows the presidentially ordered review published in December that described the federal government providing $18 billion in military-style equipment to law enforcement agencies. The President did not ban equipment at that time in part because some militarized equipment was used to respond to the Boston marathon Bombing. Now, in addition to banning future distribution of some militarized gear, the federal government is determining how newly-banned gear that was previously issued may be returned.
Read about the call for a review.>
The New York Times: Is Camden N.J. really the Model?
The New York Times cast doubt on the President’s chosen venue to demonstrate the effectiveness of a more gentle method of policing in Camden New, Jersey. While the President praised an audience of 300 for the strides Camden has taken in the past two years in improving police-public relations, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) questions the progress. According to the ACLU’s New Jersey Branch, the new system in Camden has resulted in a sharp rise in complaints of excessive force and more people being ticketed for petty offenses such as riding a bike without a bell or light. The ACLU says such a system, in which the department has dismissed two-thirds of the excessive force complaints, has the potential to create a sense of fear rather than respect for law enforcement. Yet, the President’s justification for banning and restricting militarized gear was because the use of it can give people a feeling the police are an occupying force and not a protective one. However, Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police claimed the militarized equipment was for protection, not offensive operations. Canterbury stated that a riot can happen in any city in America, “Putting those on restricted lists and making it so you’re going to have to justify having that equipment gives the connotation that the police shouldn’t have that protection, and the fact is, a riot can happen in any city in America.”
Aug. 13, 2014: A member of the St. Louis County Police Department trains his weapon on protesters in Ferguson, Mo. (AP)
Fox News: Just the Facts
Did Fox News Miss Half the Story?
Fox News reported on the President’s restrictions on federal disbursement of military-style gear to police forces without much fanfare. Like The New York Times, Fox News listed the types of equipment to be restricted as well as the comments from Ron Davis, the Department of Justice’s Director of Community Oriented Policing Services. Davis, the former East Palo Alto, CA, Police Chief, remarked that The Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21’st Century Policing is a transformational document and, “We have a unique opportunity to redefine policing in our democracy, to ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice.”
But in its abbreviated report, Fox News neither reported on the New Jersey ACLU’s response nor that of Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. While Fox News has the scary picture of the police officer with his sights trained on demonstrators, it does not include images of the President reaching out to the community and police together.
St. Louis County tactical police officers fire tear gas along West Florissant Road near St. Louis, Missouri.Robert Cohen / St. Louis Post-Dispatch/ EPA
Al Jazeera America Looks Like Fox News
Are Al Jazeera America and Fox News on the Same Side?
Al Jazeera America essentially published the same AP article as Fox News. It also failed to report on the response by the ACLU and Canterbury of the Fraternal Order of police. One interesting aspect of Al Jazeera’s reporting is its lead image is of the President attending the National Police Officers Memorial Service on May 15, 2015 with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Al Jazeera juxtaposed that image with the one featured above that depicts law enforcement personnel firing tear gas near St. Louis, Missouri, following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri in August, 2014. Al Jazeera also failed to report on replies by both the ACLU and Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police.
The New York Times Wins the Most Balanced Story Honors
In the case of the President’s decision to limit militarized equipment for police departments, The new York Times came out more balanced than eith Fox News or Al Jazeera America. Are the right and left actually aligned with respect to the arming of law enforcement? Or, was The New York Times the only news agency of the three that took the time to right a bettr story? Should we expect more of major news sources than to simply run the AP writeup?
