Every new police shooting increases the calls for reform, accountability and transparency. Unfortunately those calls don’t usually extend to the media which, in many instances, acts as cheerleader for law enforcement instead of skeptical observer and check on abuse of power. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has attempted to fill this role for thirty years and they have compiled a helpful list of “copspeak”—the jargon that police use to spin their narratives. Spotting “copspeak” should be considered an invaluable analytical tool in the efforts of Daily Kos readers to support police reform. It most certainly is an invaluable tool to keep writers such as this one from committing this heinous crime. With the most recent incidents of police shootings in Los Angeles, El Cajon, Charlotte, Tulsa and Columbus, a review of FAIR’s list, first published in July, is more than helpful:
“Officer-Involved Shooting”: Describes an act of violence without assigning blame and is almost never used for when a police officer is the victim, only when the police have shot someone — justified or not. [...]
“Suspect/Subject”: Victims of police shootings are invariably referred to as suspects or subjects, and never as victims. The term automatically triggers guilt and criminality, even though a person is supposed to be deemed innocent until proven guilty; even though the person may not have even been under arrest at the time of the incident. [...]
”Juvenile”: According to FAIR, “the term “juvenile” is used almost exclusively in the context of youth crime, giving police and uncritical media an opportunity to criminalize children or teenagers.” Criminalization is most certainly a problem, especially for youth of color who, it appears, are never referred to as youth, children, or teenagers.
“Discharged a weapon”: This one is so standard, such a favorite. “’Discharged weapon’ is another pseudo-official way of passively saying a police officer shot at someone.” Why can’t the police simply say “police shot at someone” ? Its more direct and to the point. Besides, some media use the phrase “discharged a weapon” or “a weapon was discharged” as if the weapon in question was never, ever, touched by human hands.
“Altercation/Clashes”: These words are popular catch-all phrases to describe any violent exchange between police and civilians; these phrases give the impression that the violence of both parties is equal or evenly matched. It is not.
While not considered “copspeak,” the uncritical acceptance of the police narrative is another critique that FAIR has also covered. Speaking about the police version of events that transpired in the Charlotte Mecklenburg police shooting of Lamont Scott, editor of FAIR’s magazine Extra! Jim Naureckas stated:
“One of the major problems with reporting on police violence is the degree to which police statements are treated as the gold standard of information instead of being treated with the skepticism they deserve,” Naureckas said. “There’s the fog of war that happens in these situations, as well as deliberate deception. We’ve seen over the course of our focus on these issues that police do lie, they do create evidence to match a narrative that exonerates them. There is no reason to assume that’s definitely not happening, which is why you treat police statements as claims rather than as proof.”
One need only look at the numerous instances of “officer involved shootings” where the “suspect” had a gun to see the truth of Naureckas’s words. Has anyone ever noticed that time and time again, these “suspects” who have guns only raise the guns at the police once they start running from them? Why is it that these “suspects” seem to never, ever, attempt to shoot the police beforehand, when the police are closest to them? When they can get a better shot? A shot that is not burdened by losing one’s balance due to running? Why is that?
Better yet, why is it that “suspects” who have fake/toy/replica guns “point” them at police? Do these suspects believe that suddenly, out of nowhere, their fake/toy/replica guns will now turn into real guns with real bullets and stop the police from taking them into custody? Is that really what they think?
While police departments are guilty of promoting “copspeak” they are by no means alone. Their co-conspirators are the police unions that increasingly exert their influence. FAIR noted as much in coverage of the Charlotte unrest after the death of Lamont Scott. The media uncritically accepted statements from a police union representative that “outside agitators” were fomenting the unrest in the city as fact—a representative who later admitted he was not quoting facts but purely speculating:
“ … by citing a “Charlotte police sergeant,” [CNN Host Erin Burnett] ignores the fact that he’s a union representative, and that union representatives are not operating in their capacity as police officers or spokespeople for the department. By conflating the two, [Burnett] treated what was effectively advocacy on behalf of an individual officer as an official statement by a police department; while police departments are of course capable of being deceptive themselves, they are at least in theory accountable to a city council and mayor.”
All hands are needed on deck in the fight for police reform, accountability and transparency. Being able to spot “copspeak” when it crops up goes a long way in this fight.