Friday, August 28, 2009
Something smells...media?
Well, they're all lined up outside the "Phillip Garrido compound" in Antioch, CA...and it's starting to reek. Yep, THERE they are...the local and national wanna-be pundits and provocateurs, each offering their own opinion of the shock and devastation of the 18 YEAR KIDNAPPING of Jaycee Lee Dugard, the (then) 11 year old El Dorado County (Lake Tahoe area) girl who was kidnapped from her neighborhood bus stop by Garrido (and his wife) in 1991. She was "reportedly" then held captive and over the years gave birth to two children (now ages 15 & 11), both reportedly fathered by convicted sex offender, Garrido.
Sure, they can blame the "authorities," ... and believe me, they'll get around to it. But for now, they're talking "just the facts," etc., occasionally tossing in a "Stockholm Syndrome" reference (the Stockholm Syndrome attempts to explain how a "captive" might begin to sympathize with or show signs of loyalty to their "captors" and not try to escape, etc.). All of the "on the scene" reporters are already beginning to offer their mini-editorials, taking great measure however, to remain "sensitive" to the victim (and family). But, come on, no sightings...doctors, hospitals, schools, or even things in the neighborhood, "trick or treating," etc.
But, speaking of "authorities," I'm still wondering why the media is just letting things go when they hear little tidbits like, "the subject (Garrido) is on lifetime parole and had been supervised by federal authorities from 1988 through 1999 when he was transferred to California State Parole." Now, I've worked with Parole Agents...agents who supervise convicted sex offenders. The officers I know would never have done only "three knock and talks" (home visits) a month...and not been suspicious of a backyard "compound."
Still, no questions from the media? I know, I know...they'll get around to it. HOWEVER, they are printing (and reporting) these statements, etc., AS FACT. My friends (in the media)...you can still be "compassionate," and NOT print every word or sentence you are given. How about just a little bit of investigation...remember "All the President's Men?" You know, Woodward and Bernstein would seek to verify reports utilizing multiple sources? They wouldn't simply throw "everything" at the wall (or page) and wait to see what sticks.
Many would say, hey, you're getting ahead of yourself...you're as bad as the media. Au contraire, Ben Bradley-breath!! I've been on both sides of these situations--media AND law enforcement. I understand that much of the information is not (AND CAN NOT be) released to the jackals in the media...and I also understand that law enforcement (like ALL civil servants) can make mistakes, even though much is beyond their control (again, blame the lawyers?)...still, the smell might go away with a little Listerine...or some ethics...
Sure, they can blame the "authorities," ... and believe me, they'll get around to it. But for now, they're talking "just the facts," etc., occasionally tossing in a "Stockholm Syndrome" reference (the Stockholm Syndrome attempts to explain how a "captive" might begin to sympathize with or show signs of loyalty to their "captors" and not try to escape, etc.). All of the "on the scene" reporters are already beginning to offer their mini-editorials, taking great measure however, to remain "sensitive" to the victim (and family). But, come on, no sightings...doctors, hospitals, schools, or even things in the neighborhood, "trick or treating," etc.
But, speaking of "authorities," I'm still wondering why the media is just letting things go when they hear little tidbits like, "the subject (Garrido) is on lifetime parole and had been supervised by federal authorities from 1988 through 1999 when he was transferred to California State Parole." Now, I've worked with Parole Agents...agents who supervise convicted sex offenders. The officers I know would never have done only "three knock and talks" (home visits) a month...and not been suspicious of a backyard "compound."
Still, no questions from the media? I know, I know...they'll get around to it. HOWEVER, they are printing (and reporting) these statements, etc., AS FACT. My friends (in the media)...you can still be "compassionate," and NOT print every word or sentence you are given. How about just a little bit of investigation...remember "All the President's Men?" You know, Woodward and Bernstein would seek to verify reports utilizing multiple sources? They wouldn't simply throw "everything" at the wall (or page) and wait to see what sticks.
Many would say, hey, you're getting ahead of yourself...you're as bad as the media. Au contraire, Ben Bradley-breath!! I've been on both sides of these situations--media AND law enforcement. I understand that much of the information is not (AND CAN NOT be) released to the jackals in the media...and I also understand that law enforcement (like ALL civil servants) can make mistakes, even though much is beyond their control (again, blame the lawyers?)...still, the smell might go away with a little Listerine...or some ethics...
# posted by mediacopp : 8:33 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
