The tragic events in Uvalde have been interesting in many ways, but one of those ways is how the response has acted as a reminder that most people – including people who know that the press often prints “facts” that turn out to be false – don’t read media reports with a critical eye. This is particularly true if the report aligns with some preconceived notion the reader has, but it’s not limited to that.
People often talk about paying attention to the 24-hour rule or the 48-hour rule, which is to wait for that long before believing a seemingly sensational story in the news. Sometimes I think it should be the 24-day rule, or the 24-week rule, or even more depending on the story’s complexity and the strength of the motive behind presenting it in a certain manner. For example, the facts of Russiagate are still emerging, all these years later, although most people who hate Trump are probably still stuck in their earlier perceptions of him as Russian asset and are quite happy to stay there. In that sense, the media will have accomplished its task of setting the “narrative” early and powerfully.
That’s one of the reasons I’ve written so many posts on Uvalde. This particular story has various features that put me on alert for poor coverage. The first is that it’s a highly emotional and very disturbing and even heartbreaking event to begin with, so we have emotions that are a mix of despair, fear, anguish, and rage. After the initial coverage and shock, though, the rage at the perpetrator starts moving to the background. After all, he’s a shadowy figure about which little is known, and now he’s dead so there isn’t that much to focus on – no trial, no confession, no nothing. But the police who failed to protect are an easy target, and in addition in this case (as in most) there were failures of execution and apparently a lot of confusion and even chaos, all of which has resulted in accusations of cowardice or worse.
The MSM has been focusing on that part of the story, and it started early with the release of videos of parents standing outside screaming at the police to do something. At that point, did they – or we – even know that the entire school was being evacuated by police and other officers? I don’t recall that being said until later, and it hasn’t been described often or in any detail. And yet it apparently happened, although we have yet to be given a timeline that would help us understand when it happened, and how efficiently or inefficiently.
In addition, there have been so many stories – some based on interviews with various participants, including traumatized child survivors – that no one is coordinating them and looking to see whether the facts being told match up with each other. I say “no one,” but supposedly someone is doing just that: those who are mounting a full investigation and who will be releasing some sort of report many months or even up to a year from now. Till then, they’re not supposed to leak, and one reason is that preliminary and fragmentary information can be very wrong.
But the public wants to know more, and now. For example, commenter “MBunge” writes, among other things:
…as long as you don’t also suggest we should be happy and content with Uvalde police preventing the public from hearing 911 calls or viewing body camera footage of that day.
I just want there to be one standard on this stuff. Not one where, for example, doubt is cast on the statements made by a mother in the immediate aftermath of the shooting but carefully planned and prepared comments by the Uvalde school police chief made over two weeks later are treated as gold.
That last paragraph is a criticism aimed at me. Some or even most of you may have missed what’s being referenced there, so I refer you to this comment of mine and also this, which both point out why I have some reservations about the much-reported story told by a mother who claims to have rescued her own kids. To briefly summarize, my hesitation about accepting the story at face value rests on a large problem with the timeline she gives, the lack of any corroborating evidence including photos, and the fact that the woman appears to have a criminal past. That does not mean her story is false – as I’ve also written. As for the police chief’s story, I have included reminders that we simply don’t know whether his story is true or not. We do need to hear it and evaluate it, though, and weigh it against actual evidence as it comes out, and we don’t have enough information yet to know.
I’ve repeatedly said that I have no problem condemning police if and when I do have more – and more reliable – information, and it points to their guilt. As it is, though, there’s plenty to already criticize, such as the chaos and confusion of the command structure, and the lack of knowledge about the keys, and I have criticized those things and more. But I refuse to say I know more than I know.
I plan another post that deals with the blockbuster story that came out over the weekend, saying that the police didn’t even try to see if the classroom doors were open or not as they waited in the hall, and that there is video evidence of this, and that at least one of those classroom doors was actually unlocked. Hopefully, I’ll get to it today or tomorrow (I’ve already written this lengthy comment about it, as well as others, but I have considerably more to say).
In the meantime, I’ll deal with this Vice article on which I’ve already written several comments; the article is about police “lawyering up” and refusing to release certain material. It is what commenter MBunge was referring to when he wrote: “…as long as you don’t also suggest we should be happy and content with Uvalde police preventing the public from hearing 911 calls or viewing body camera footage of that day.”
There we have the typically sarcastic idea that I’m saying “we should be happy and content” – something I never said. But think for a moment of what is being asked by MBunge and others: hearing 911 calls and viewing body camera footage of that day. I can’t offhand think of a school shooting where such footage was released by police before an investigation was complete. For example, bodycams (if there were any in Uvalde; I’ve heard differing reports on that) would show – among other things – the police entering and seeing the mutilated bodies of fourth-graders, some with their heads practically blown off. I’m being graphic here because it’s necessary to actually confront what’s being demanded. The 911 calls would feature the voices of terrified children who survived, and perhaps even some who died.
Does the public have right to demand such things, and are they ordinarily released so early in the game? I can’t recall any such release in the past, and certainly not at this point – which has nothing to do with being “happy” and “content” about it.
In addition, if you read that Vice article carefully, you’ll find this:
“Uvalde Hires Private Law Firm to Argue It Doesn’t Have to Release School Shooting Public Records” – Some of the records relating to the Robb Elementary School shooting could be “highly embarrassing,” involve “emotional/mental distress,” and are “not of legitimate concern to the public,” the lawyers argued.
Sounds terrible, and like a coverup. And it’s meant to sound that way. But note the shortness of the quotes. “Embarrassing” to whom? “Emotional/mental distress” for whom? We are meant to think it’s the police, of course – and indeed it probably would cause those things for the police. But from previous experience, I’ve learned that in order to understand what’s actually being said here, we need to see the full quote. What comes to my mind is that the release of the videos and 911 recordings would be highly likely to cause distress to some of the victims’ and survivors’ families, as well as the survivors themselves. That’s not rocket science.
Later on in the article there’s also this, which indicates this is just a preliminary legal position that is standard, and later there will be a determination by the court of what needs releasing and what doesn’t:
“The City has not voluntarily released any information to a member of the public,” the city’s lawyer, Cynthia Trevino, who works for the private law firm Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, wrote in a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The city wrote the letter asking Paxton for a determination about what information it is required to release to the public, which is standard practice in Texas. Paxton’s office will eventually rule which of the city’s arguments have merit and will determine which, if any, public records it is required to release.
And then we get to this [emphasis mine]:
The letter makes clear, however, that the city and its police department want to be exempted from releasing a wide variety of records in part because it is being sued, in part because some of the records could include “highly embarrassing information,” in part because some of the information is “not of legitimate concern to the public,” in part because the information could reveal “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime,” in part because some of the information may cause or may “regard … emotional/mental distress,” and in part because its response to the shooting is being investigated by the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and the Uvalde County District Attorney.
So now we learn one of the reasons for the “lawyering up”: the city and its police department are being sued. Perhaps you don’t think they deserve to hire additional private legal representation, as they have done here (they apparently already have one in-house attorney). But I would think them very foolish if they hadn’t “lawyered up” under these circumstances. Note that again all those short quotes about embarrassing information and emotional distress are offered, with no further explanation of who would be experiencing those things. We are left to assume it would solely be the police.
The Vice article does include the text of the actual letter sent by the lawyer, in its entirety. This is in a little box, and is ten pages long (at least, it was that long in the font I use). How many people who read the Vice article will also plow through the letter, which is not only long but in dry legalese? I submit that it would be read by very very few. I quickly read it in order to determine whether it specifies who would be embarrassed or emotionally distressed, and it does not. This is unsurprising, because this is a legal document whose function it is to quote the relevant statute, which contains general language about those things, blanket language that applies to anyone who might be involved in the case.
So in summary, no one is asking anyone to be “content and happy,” only to look at a more full picture and to also wait for more information to see how things pan out. It’s also good to look at all articles carefully and read them with an eye towards noticing what is being put in and what is being left out. And to keep asking questions.
