the spectrum newspaper • january 29, 2015
Media information overload
opinions
Body cameras catch conflicts
13
When does the world become too much?
The only way to see the truth is to actually see it
I
I
C.C. Lucas • Creative Director
nformation. It’s everywhere, and it’s an impossible task to go through it all. Many people are well-informed, naturally inclined to quench their inquisitive thirst with research and hypothesis. Many, however, aren’t. There’s so much information being exchanged dayto-day that it’s easy to think extra research won’t present anything new. But how does someone know it’s good information that they’re taking in? With information and emotion so closely intertwined, separating the accurate things someone hears from the information that has been blurred or exaggerated is a big task people don’t have time to tackle. But what someone absorbs in hallways and on Twitter usually isn’t enough. People sometimes soak up not the most logical information they are given, but the information that is presented to them with a strong emotional charge; the information shouted at them; the loudest, most shocking, or most sentimental stories. Scrolling through social media sites every day and staring headlines in the face, students and adults alike may begin to believe things because they feel it is the right thing to believe, and not because they know that thing is true. Though being affected by the surrounding environment is inevitable, the best way for people to form a point of view is to question and check informat i o n b e fore
agreeing with it or using it to build an opinion. Infinite internet information is available at the click of a few keys. While a search engine can spit out infinite information, it cannot filter out what information is worth believing. Sometimes people using search engines don’t get further than reading the first couple of hits to get background and form an opinion. We need to look further than what pops up first, just like we need to question what we hear and see in hallways. Seeking information to form opinions is good, but only if the information we are fueling our minds with is good. Like a healthy variety of food usually makes for better functioning, the information someone feeds their brain should come from different sources and should be reliable. Strong, supportable opinions are come from strong informational foundations. Controlling intake, rather than woofing down the first article we click on, is how we can get the more whole and comprehensive story. If someone wants to search for information, they should con-
sider a few tricks to filter their information intake. Clicking on reliable sources is a given. Before even clicking, one should look critically at both the source and the title to see if they’re clicking on a helpful article or one that won’t offer much information. Also, before taking off on a tangent because one article really resonates, one should try other sources that provide different arguments. Their brain will start to develop around that one argument and they will likely forget about searching for background and start searching for answers to their questions about that particular take on the story, making that story more likely to become the base of their opinion. Think this way in other social aspects of life, too. Information is the root to every viewpoint on any issue, and the better informed people are, the more understanding they’ll be of other people’s viewpoints. Disagreement is good because it creates dialogue. However, the disagreement can be more productive if it stems from something such as differing moral compasses or cultural experiences than if the core disagreement is largely over what actually happened. Facts are step one toward progress, and progress becomes possible only if everyone has them down.
graphic credit: Cindy Quinn
Rachel Hertzberg • Staff Writer
n the wake of high-profile cases of police officers receiving no trial after killing two unarmed black men, many have been calling for cops to be required to wear body cameras while on duty. Proponents of this idea say that officers will be forced to think twice before harming people, and will no longer be able to act with such impunity, while others argue that this will do little to nothing to resolve the issues. This is no new idea. In 2013, the police force of Rialto, California, started a study in which half of all officers wore a tiny camera clipped to their uniform. The results were shocking: Rialto saw an 88% decrease in complaints filed against officers, and the officers used 60% less force. Many have pointed out that the cameras also protect the officers from false complaints of brutality, and could cut down on conflicting claims from witnesses, as were seen in the grand jury proceeding of Darren Wilson. In November, the Minneapolis Police Department started a body camera program. MPR News quoted police chief Janeé Harteau as saying, “I believe the equipment will provide an added layer of transparency and accountability to the department.” The cameras will be worn whenever officers have contact with civilians, even for routine interactions such as traffic stops. However, the policy will be
Additionally, there are worries that increased surveillance of police interactions could interfere with citizens’ privacy rights. Many people believe that in situations where officers are interviewing victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, they should be allowed to turn their cameras off in order to protect the person’s safety and privacy. According to the LA Times, videos of these types of interviews have in the past fallen into the wrong hands and been used as a horrific form of entertainment. By this argument, body cameras would be best used only in subject to graphic credit: C.C. Lucas public for situachange as tions like stopping the program evolves and people on the street or the results are publicized. confronting possible susHowever, compelling pects. arguments as to why body Many say that the exiscameras will not be an all- tence of video footage canencompassing solution not solve the root problem were recently brought to of a disregard for black life. national attention. In the Even if body cameras do case of Eric Garner, a by- cut down on violence, they stander used a cellphone cannot eradicate Amerito film Garner’s encounter ca’s complacency with the with NYPD Officer Daniel rampant extrajudicial killPantaleo. Despite the vid- ings of black people by poeo of Pantaleo using what lice officers. appears to be a chokehold However, there is a (illegal in New York) to difference between sursubdue Garner, a grand reptitious cellphone surjury decided not to bring veillance and systematic Pantaleo to trial. Video monitoring of officers. evidence failed to bring Hopefully Minneapolis the victim to justice, and it will see a reduction of viocertainly will not prevent lence as a result of the new the disproportionate ha- program, and usher in a rassment of and violence new era of police work. toward people of color that works with, instead that are occurring now of against, the community and will continue to occur. that it aspires to protect. In the police shooting of Antonio Martin last month near Ferguson, a dashboard camera on the patrol car was inexplicably not turned on, another potential problem.