[y66]

This is a fascinating story in the making.

Quote

Despite their differing origins and sources of funding, however, the Marshall Project and First Look Media share one thing in common: a commitment to high-quality, independent journalism, which tackles serious subjects and, when necessary, upsets powerful interests. In an era when it’s widely believed that online journalism has no place for in-depth reporting and muckraking, these developments caution against blanket statements.

Public-interest journalism is still under threat, especially at the local level, where cutbacks in editorial budgets have decimated many newsrooms. But it’s not finished yet. The Internet, while it undercuts the traditional media model, opens up interesting new possibilities. An explosion of information from official and unofficial sources has provided more raw material for reporters and commentators, especially in specialist areas such as finance, technology, and the law. And part of what the Internet takes away in advertising revenues it gives back in lower production costs, new formats for telling stories, an expanded potential audience, and alternative sources of funding.

In any case, we shouldn’t let nostalgia color our thinking. In days of yore, some big newspaper companies diverted part of the industry’s monopoly rents to finance investigative journalism, but it was always a small part. Apart from a few major titles, such as the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, a willingness to support long-running investigations, some of which invariably lead nowhere, was the exception rather than the rule—and that was hardly surprising. Investigative reporters cause trouble. And, in most American towns and cities, the relationship between the local newspaper and the political and business establishments is very cozy.

Greenwald, who was a lawyer before he turned to blogging, is squarely in the troublemaking tradition; Keller, less so. But both of their ventures seek to exploit the opportunities that online publishing offers. They appear so far to be narrower in scope than ProPublica, which covers a number of different areas, and that may be a good thing. One of the paradoxes of the Internet is that, although it rewards celebrity stories and videos of kittens playing with yarn, it also rewards sites that go narrow and deep. The reason is technological. While there aren’t as many people interested in the details of N.S.A. surveillance or prison conditions as there are people interested in sports or pop singers, the Internet allows them all to gather in one place. And, when they do, the readership can be a substantial and influential one.

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2014-February-12, 08:37, said:

This is a fascinating story in the making.

Thanks for the link. Looks like the web is starting to mature news-wise...

[kenberg]

Now all we have to do is read it with an open mind and give it our serious attention. We will. Of course we will.

Life was once simpler but, as the man says, we cant' dwell on nostalgia.

[Winstonm]

We have met the future and hope it survives.

[y66]

Quote

Our goal is to create a first-class news organization that will spark a national conversation about the troubled US criminal justice system. -- Neil Barsky, Publisher, The Marshall Project

Quote

We believe that with the tools now available for gathering, testing, presenting and distributing information, we can create a national hub where aggressive reporting, rigorous analysis and stimulating conversation converge. One in 31 American adults lives under the supervision of the criminal justice system – in prison or jail, or on parole or probation. Millions more are tied to that system as enforcers or victims, advocates or academics, policymakers or journalists. This is a subject that defines us. If we are successful, we can hold the system more accountable for delivering on its promise of humane and effective justice. -- Bill Keller, Editor-in-chief, The Marshall Project

[kenberg]

"aggressive reporting, rigorous analysis and stimulating conversation converge"

That's just like here on the Forum, right?

Life is like a game of bridge. Once you read Goren, you learned Blackwood and Stayman, you called another couple to come over and you played a few rubbers. Times change. i still remember when an opponent explained that they play upside down revolving Roman discards.So it is with the world. I really wish to have an informed opinion about Ukraine. The capitol is Kiev, right? Will that cover it? How do I ask about the queen of trump if hearts are trump and partner responds 5♦? I knew I should be playing kickback.

Oh, I do appreciate the possibilities here, really I think it is great. But I recall a story about a baseball player, bottom of the ninth, and his team just scored a run, tying the score. Great news, but he was ready to go out for a beer.

[Winstonm]

In the spirit of the OP: When did PBS become the Plutocratic Broadcasting Service?

[onoway]

http://www.cbsnews.c...arner-to-merge/

Quote

Cohen said regulators will give the deal a pass, but will watch he new entity carefully to ensure that no anti-competitive actions are taking place.

What a strange thing to say..there'll be pretty much nobody left to compete with, from what I understand.

[PassedOut]

onoway, on 2014-February-16, 00:48, said:

What a strange thing to say..there'll be pretty much nobody left to compete with, from what I understand.

We could use another Teddy Roosevelt.

[y66]

PassedOut, on 2014-February-16, 09:27, said:

We could use another Teddy Roosevelt.

See the Elizabeth Warren thread.

[y66]

From Why Bill Keller left the New York Times to put a spotlight on criminal justice by Dara Lind on November 18, 2014

Quote

This week marks the launch of the Marshall Project, a nonprofit journalism site that's devoted solely to the topic of criminal justice. It's certainly showing up at the right time. From the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO, in August, to the surprisingly bipartisan support in Congress for reducing criminal sentences for drug offenses, it seems like the public (or at least elites) is paying much more attention to the criminal-justice system than it was even at the beginning of 2014, when the Marshall Project was announced

[kenberg]

From the beginning of the Ferguson business I have regarded the reporting as highly twisted and I regard this site and its highlighted liink to Brown as an example.
At http://www.vox.com/c...son-MO-protests
we are told that

Quote

Ferguson Police say Brown stole some cigars in a convenience store robbery prior to the shooting. But Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson also clarified that Wilson, who shot and killed Brown, was unaware of the robbery allegations during "the initial contact with Brown" and instead initially stopped Brown for jaywalking. (Jackson later told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, after the initial stop, Wilson realized Brown could be the suspect of the robbery when he spotted the potentially stolen cigars in Brown's hand.)

Well, you could put it that way. The police "say he stole some cigars". Actually they have a video of Brown stealing something from a store and shoving the manager. or clerk or owner out of the way as he left. No one ever, as far as I know, said that this incident at the store justified shooting Brown. The initial reports about Brown described his a college bound student, a big man but "a gentle giant". I don't care about the college bit one way or the other, but the video is at odds with the gentle ginat portrayal and that is relevant. The issue is whether the officer had reasonable cause to fear injury or death and if that fear justified the force that he used. The initial media portrayals were of a young man so sweet and gentle that it was simply absurd to think that an officer had any reason at all to be concerned for his safety with this gentle giant.

What happened exactly? I don't know. One of the columnists at the Washington Post said the same thing, that he didn't know. Then he went on to say that they should indict the officer anyway. It would be a ravesty not to, he said. Who gives a crap what actually happened? This last sentence was not part of his article, it's my summary of what he said.

Ultimately people are responsible for their own actions but the media love ( guess grammatically it is love not loves, media being plural) to stir up a fight. It sells papers, it makes starts out of journalists, and it isn't their shop that gets looted and burned.They do the publicity then they catch a plane.

[mycroft]

I remember reading somewhere (don't remember where unfortunately) that *everybody* gets indicted - effectively the bar is not "is there a reasonable chance he's guilty" but "is there at least some hope that there's a case here?" Indicted != convicted, by any stretch.

So it is quite possible that it is in fact a travesty that he was not indicted (i.e. the prosecution didn't make the case to the grand jury that they could make a case at trial - that usually means "didn't bother to try") while still being also true that there is not only no possibility of conviction (i.e. the person isn't guilty) but also no likelihood of conviction because the accused is a police officer (because it's incredibly hard to convict a police officer of anything - and historically, this has been one of the ways that happens).

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2014-November-19, 14:37, said:

I remember reading somewhere (don't remember where unfortunately) that *everybody* gets indicted - effectively the bar is not "is there a reasonable chance he's guilty" but "is there at least some hope that there's a case here?" Indicted != convicted, by any stretch.

So it is quite possible that it is in fact a travesty that he was not indicted (i.e. the prosecution didn't make the case to the grand jury that they could make a case at trial - that usually means "didn't bother to try") while still being also true that there is not only no possibility of conviction (i.e. the person isn't guilty) but also no likelihood of conviction because the accused is a police officer (because it's incredibly hard to convict a police officer of anything - and historically, this has been one of the ways that happens).

The usual phrase is that an aggressive prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Which leads to the question of why the media, or anyone, would regard this as a good idea.

[y66]

Sounds like Mycroft is posting from the future. I have no idea where kenberg is posting from.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2014-November-20, 09:37, said:

Sounds like Mycroft is posting from the future. I have no idea where kenberg is posting from.

Maryland, I think. No future there, I've heard.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-November-20, 17:45, said:

Maryland, I think. No future there, I've heard.

I'm in the witness protection program.


Maryland has just elected its second Republican governor since Spiro something or other. The Democratic leadership is asking how this could happen. I can tell them. We accidentally turned on a campaign ad, and before Becky understood either who is was for or who it was against she broke out in extreme laughter. It turned out to be the Democrat's attempt to scare the voters about the Republican candidate. When you are trying to scare the voters about your opponent and a not particularly political viewer breaks out in laughter, you have a problem.

The other time, since Spiro, that a Republican won the governorship he was running against a Kennedy. It is said that she ran a bad campaign. True, but she had little to work with. Maryland will elect almost any Democrat. Almost.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2014-November-20, 09:37, said:

Sounds like Mycroft is posting from the future. I have no idea where kenberg is posting from.

First and foremost, I hope we can get through this without everything going to hell. A sentiment shared by nearly everyone I think.


From the beginning, I have felt that either of the following statements could be true:

1. The officer was in reasonable fear for his safety and did the best he could.

2. For whatever the reason, the officer lost his self-control and shot Mr. brown without adequate cause.


I did not, and I do not, know which is correct.

I had heard that the testimony before the grand jury might be released. I recognize this is not standard practice, but if that can happen I think it would be very helpful. I have no difficulty understanding why the African-American community is not willing to simply take the word of a white cop, No one should,really, regardless of racial issues. I get that part, but we have had extensive testimony under oath and I would like to see it considered.

Here is something on the issue of releasing the testimony:

http://www.nbcnews.c...release-n254501


Cops, like everyone else, sometimes lose their good sense and do something wrong. But it's a dangerous job. We don't owe them carte blanche, we do owe them the respect of considering that how they tell it might actually be how it happened. . That is, we owe them an open mind and a thorough investigation of just what the truth is.

I hope they can release the testimony, I hope that it will be taken under serious consideration. I hope that restraint and good sense prevail after the grand jury's decision, whatever it might be.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-November-23, 15:48, said:

First and foremost, I hope we can get through this without everything going to hell. A sentiment shared by nearly everyone I think.


From the beginning, I have felt that either of the following statements could be true:

1. The officer was in reasonable fear for his safety and did the best he could.

2. For whatever the reason, the officer lost his self-control and shot Mr. brown without adequate cause.


I did not, and I do not, know which is correct.

I had heard that the testimony before the grand jury might be released. I recognize this is not standard practice, but if that can happen I think it would be very helpful. I have no difficulty understanding why the African-American community is not willing to simply take the word of a white cop, No one should,really, regardless of racial issues. I get that part, but we have had extensive testimony under oath and I would like to see it considered.

Here is something on the issue of releasing the testimony:

http://www.nbcnews.c...release-n254501


Cops, like everyone else, sometimes lose their good sense and do something wrong. But it's a dangerous job. We don't owe them carte blanche, we do owe them the respect of considering that how they tell it might actually be how it happened. . That is, we owe them an open mind and a thorough investigation of just what the truth is.

I hope they can release the testimony, I hope that it will be taken under serious consideration. I hope that restraint and good sense prevail after the grand jury's decision, whatever it might be.

What about this? How can we justify not relaying that the 911 caller said the gun was "probably fake"? How can any cop shoot a 12-year-old on a playground without really "knowing" he was in danger?

Personally, I think this "shoot first" cop mentality is bull hockey. I also am positive in my own mind that if this child had been white he would still be alive.

[mycroft]

kenberg, on 2014-November-23, 15:48, said:

First and foremost, I hope we can get through this without everything going to hell. A sentiment shared by nearly everyone I think.

Me too. And for the "future" bit, I just assumed that "state of emergency because of fear of violence" meant that the grand jury verdict was imminent, not that it would take another week. Sorry.

Quote

From the beginning, I have felt that either of the following statements could be true:

1. The officer was in reasonable fear for his safety and did the best he could.
2. For whatever the reason, the officer lost his self-control and shot Mr. brown without adequate cause.

I did not, and I do not, know which is correct.

I could easily see both being correct. It would in fact not surprise me at all if both were correct. I believe that this is the heart of a problem, maybe not of this problem, but a problem in general. Add to that the fact that juries believe police, and prosecutors don't want to prosecute police (because those that get a reputation for that tend to get less cooperation from police in future, and therefore have low conviction rates, and therefore don't get promoted/re-elected), and we have a situation where "reasonable" for a police officer may be different from reasonable for you and me.