Street Smart

I’ve mentioned in prior columns my strongly held belief that we should all do the work of finding the truth of a matter before forming an opinion. It’s an unfortunate fact that there is a great deal of false and/or misleading information printed and broadcast by major media outlets. There are examples of this every day, but I’ll use a recent high-profile event to illustrate my point followed by one from my own experience.

On January 19, 2019, students from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kansas, were in Washington D.C., participating in a March For Life rally. There was a highly publicized videotaped interaction between one of these students (Nick Sandmann) and a Native American man (Nathan Phillips). The press immediately seized on a portion of the video that appeared to show Sandmann blocking Phillips' path and smirking as he (Phillips) played a drum. Sandmann was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, which quickly became a focal point for the media. The media immediately reported that Sandmann was the aggressor.

Unfortunately for most of the media outlets, they failed to do their due diligence and find out what really occurred. They ultimately had to retract their reports. Review of the entire video showed that a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites were the true instigators in this incident. The full video shows the Black Hebrew Israelites taunting the high school students and the Native American marchers. Think about it from the media’s perspective. They couldn’t report what really occurred. That would make them look racist. Fortunately for the media, many of the students were wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats. That fact alone provided the villains they needed. Now all they had to do was televise the portion of video that fit their agenda and voila! Doubt me? Watch it yourself…it’s out there. It’s been reported that a libel suit may be filed against various media on behalf of the high school students. I’ll be shocked if it goes anywhere.

My second example: Years ago, while working the Los Angeles Police Department’s K9 Unit, I was assigned to have a television reporter ride with me for a shift. At the time, there was significant controversy regarding police K9s. Many believed that the dogs were vicious animals who bit everyone we encountered. The focus of the report was supposed to be on providing an accurate depiction of police dogs and proving that the negative perception was false.

The reporter, Michelle, arrived at my house and filmed my dog, Thor, playing fetch with my 2-year-old son. Michelle then got to play with Thor herself and (in her words), “immediately fell in love.” Michelle, Thor and I then got into the police car and headed to work.

A typical day for us involved a stop at the Police Academy where we did some training, usually focusing on protection (we called it bite work) and obedience. Most readers will be familiar with what I call bite work if you’ve ever seen a police dog biting a decoy wearing a bite suit or holding a sleeve. Michelle got to participate in the training by wearing the sleeve herself and letting Thor “bite” her arm. As we were completing the training, we were called to a K9 search request for a murder suspect. Obviously Michelle couldn’t go on the search with Thor and I, but I was wearing a microphone. Thor found the murder suspect and he was taken into custody without incident. He was not bitten. Michelle, Thor and I then cleared the scene and continued the shift. Several times during that night, Thor stuck his head through the partition separating the front and back seat of the car, and rested it on Michelle’s shoulder looking for a scratch. Michelle commented over and over again that she couldn’t believe Thor was actually capable of biting a person. Perfect! That is what we wanted to demonstrate all along right? Not so fast.

When the story was televised, there were a couple seconds showing Thor playing with my son. Next there was significant time dedicated to showing Thor’s bite work on the Academy field. Then there was video of a large police presence at the search for the murder suspect. There was no mention of the fact that the suspect was not bitten. There was no mention of Michelle’s opinion that she doubted Thor could actually bite a person. Finally, the piece ended with dog bite photos from some other law enforcement agency! I know that because my K9 Unit had a strict policy at the time prohibiting such photos. Everyone was shocked at what was reported. We had been assured that the focus of the report was to reflect the true nature of police dogs. We did that and Michelle saw it. I was quite angry and called her out on it. She was truly sorry about the way it had turned out and stated, “I’m so sorry but I don’t have any control. Once my editor gets it, it’s out of my hands!” The bottom line? The truth didn’t fit the media outlet’s agenda, so they pieced together material that did! I learned a valuable lesson that day.

This sounds like a pretty strong indictment of the media in general. That’s not at all my intent and would be terribly unfair. Clearly, most journalists are honest, hard working people who do their best to accurately report factual information every day. What I’m trying to convey is the lesson I’ve learned. I try to make sure I have accurate, factual, information before taking a position on an issue. Consider the two examples above. If a person believed either report as initially presented, that person might later take a position and share an opinion that was based on false or partial information rather than the truth.

Blaine Blackstone is a retired Los Angeles Police Sergeant who enjoys the simpler life in Thompson Falls. He can be reached by email at [email protected].