Journalism and Public Affairs Fall 2012

After reviewing the segment once again, my thoughts were reinforced by what I heard from the producers. They cited several things regarding the case and they touched upon some key facts why the case played out the way it did.  The Fives’ vulnerability, their race, their inexperience with crimes (they had never been in trouble before), no attorneys being present, and a huge amount of pressure were contributing factors to their downfall. Hearing Raymond Santana’s side of things also was important because it highlighted the transition problem that released prisoners face when returning to society.

I was happy that the professor used radio to help us learn.  Specifically, the AM dial and the talk radio sub-genre has been important in the history of our country.  With the rise of the Internet, radio has taken a backseat.  From a very young age, I was taught the importance of AM radio and how it spread news/information so quickly.  Most people don’t know that when the atmospheric conditions are just right, we can hear AM radio stations from all over the world.  Just turn on the radio and explore it for yourself.  Here upstate, there is an historic, highly-powered AM station that has been at the forefront of news distribution since the beginning of radio.  The station is 810 WGY and it gave me my first lesson because I learned that if I listened to the facts, listened to news reports, then I would be well-informed.  I knew this when I was 5 years old.  I shared this story because I see talk radio/AM radio as an important cog in our social fabric.

From Bernard Goetz to Central Park Five

I guess one can easily understand through these 2 cases (Bernard Goetz and Central Park Five) the racial tensions that existed during the 1980s in New York City. Are there any lessons to learn? How much of a progress did we make as a society? Can the mighty progress of technology help us in anyway? These questions will be answered on part 2 of my blog. In the meantime, let me recount the stories.  On December 22, 1984, a “subway vigilante” known as Bernard Goetz shot 4 young Black men in a Manhattan subway car. The motive was that he was intimidated and thought he was about to get rob.  At that time the opinions were divided: one group concerned for their safety riding the subway system thought he did the right thing. Another group thought this was racism because the victims were 4 young African-Americans. Goetz was arrested and acquitted 3 years later. Yes, he was convicted for possession of unlicensed weapon and was sent to jail for 250 days. By the way, one of the victims, Darryl Cabey, is still paralyzed from the shooting. How did the media behave? Can someone refresh me on that?

            In 1989 a Central Park jogger was raped, beaten and nearly killed. She was a 28 year-old investment banker. Of course, it was without questions a terrifying story. However, this time 5 young men were selected by the NYPD because, according to police, there was a group of 30 or more youngsters causing trouble that night in Central Park. The 5 young men( Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise, Yusef Salaam and Antron Mccray} were wrongfully convicted, although there was no physical evidence, but only confessions made under intense police pressure. 13 years later a serial rapist, Mathias Reyes, confessed to the crime with DNA matching evidence. How can anybody recuperate from the physical and emotional harms that where inflicted on them?

Lionel

From Bernard Goetz to Central Park Five

I guess one can easily understand through these 2 cases (Bernard Goetz and Central Park Five) the racial tensions that existed during the 1980s in New York City. Are there any lessons to learn? How much of a progress did we make as a society? Can the mighty progress of technology help us in anyway? These questions will be answered on part 2 of my blog. In the meantime, let me recount the stories.  On December 22, 1984, a “subway vigilante” known as Bernard Goetz shot 4 young Black men in a Manhattan subway car. The motive was that he was intimidated and thought he was about to get rob.  At that time the opinions were divided: one group concerned for their safety riding the subway system thought he did the right thing. Another group thought this was racism because the victims were 4 young African-Americans. Goetz was arrested and acquitted 3 years later. Yes, he was convicted for possession of unlicensed weapon and was sent to jail for 250 days. By the way, one of the victims, Darryl Cabey, is still paralyzed from the shooting. How did the media behave? Can someone refresh me on that?

            In 1989 a Central Park jogger was raped, beaten and nearly killed. She was a 28 year-old investment banker. Of course, it was without questions a terrifying story. However, this time 5 young men were selected by the NYPD because, according to police, there was a group of 30 or more youngsters causing trouble that night in Central Park. The 5 young men( Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise, Yusef Salaam and Antron Mccray} were wrongfully convicted, although there was no physical evidence, but only confessions made under intense police pressure. 13 years later a serial rapist, Mathias Reyes, confessed to the crime with DNA matching evidence. How can anybody recuperate from the physical and emotional harms that where inflicted on them?

Lionel

I listened to the radio show on WNYC with the producers and one of the central park five. Ms. Burns brings home the point that the conviction of the Five were racially motivated. Central Park was sacred ground in the minds of many. So the feeling was that, even though crime was rampant in NYC in the 80s; central park and its neighboring communities felt that it could not reach them and when it did they whom ever did it had to pay.

/Luc

The Central Park Five documents the wrongful conviction of five Black and Latino young men in New York City. In my opinion, the movie highlights the institutional failure of the NYPD and the Press.

The NYPD in its haste to calm people down and respond to the Mayor’s call to punish those responsible failed to investigate the crime in the right way. NYPD quickly selected these young men not because it believe that they had committed the crime but because these young men happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; though there were nothing linking them to the crime. To them it was a slam dunk: a crime plus five vulnerable young men without the proper representation equals convictions.

All the while NYC mainstream press stood by without asking a single questions of the NYPD. No one was assigned to find out about these young men. The information from the press all came from what the NYPD had released about these young men. No investigation took place.

While watching the movie, all I could think about is how come no one person decided to speak to these young men. Also I felt that the failure of the press though not racial had a lot to do with access. maybe no one wanted to offend the Mayor’s office by printing something that the Mayor, in the movie, had publicly declared a test of the city.

I felt sad watching the movie with my two boys. I felt even sadder when when they could not comprehend why “cops would send innocent people to jail.”

/Luc

I found the radio segment on the  Central Park Five extremely interesting.  When asked why these 5 were singled out, the producers stated that they were the most vulnerable as they were not involved in any interactions before with the law and were unaware of the workings of the system.  They did not know how to handle the interrogators, and were eager to please the police in order to go home.  They believed that, if anything, they would merely just be witnesses to a crime.  Each had implicated the other in the crime, and the boys never imagined their own words would be used against them.  It was also sad to hear Raymond Santana describe how after he was released from jail, he fell on hard times as there was no transitional programs for him to get acclimated to living life outside of prison.

Christina

Absence of Malice is a film about a Miami liquor wholesaler, the son of a deceased criminal, who is at the center of the disappearance and assumed murder of a longshoreman union official, Joseph Diaz. The title of the movie refers to defamation of character. This is centered on a news reporter, Megan Carter, who is fighting to advance her career. In doing so, she severely hurts people around her through unethical decision-making and journalistic sins.

One key error Carter made was not contacting Gallagher before she released the story about him. She was supposed to call him and see what he had to say about the allegations she was going to make in her article. However, she did not; and she released highly speculative information about Gallagher that created much unwanted attention for him. She should have repeatedly called Gallagher and left multiple messages; or perhaps, left a copy of the story at his place of business. A reporter must be persistent in attempting to contact the private individual that he or she is releasing a report about. This allows the target of the story to defend him or herself, correct any blaring errors, and make any appropriate comments. Gallagher, like any private individual, can sue the reporter and the newspaper service for defamation of character.

The former error pales in comparison to the one including Teresa Perrone’s name and the details of her story in an article in the paper. Under much emotional stress and being badgered by Carter, Perrone told Carter intimate details about, what could be, Gallagher’s potential alibi. At time the Diaz went missing, Gallagher was with Carter in Atlanta, where she had had an abortion. Megan Carter was so focused on proving Gallagher’s innocence, or lack of involvement, with Diaz, that she went against Perrone’s wishes to not be mentioned in the paper. Carter went against her own morals, ethical boundaries, as well as those expected from a journalist of a major newspaper.  After Perrone’s wishes were ignored and the story was published, she committed suicide.

I am still uncertain if Megan’s relationship with Michael Gallagher was genuine. Was it mere infatuation? Love? Or was it simply using him to benefit from more intimate details surrounding the story. There is, perhaps, some interplay between all of the abovementioned questions.

-Shaun

The movie gives insights about the aftermaths of unlimited freedom of press. If reporters are not accountable for what they write or nobody can sue them about the allegations in the story, more people can get harm with the false stories.

The reporters should have freedom about absolute information. But if a reporter will print something that can be false, “the absence of malice” will make the reporter to think about the consequences of the story.

In the movie, Megan Carter makes some major faults as a reporter. First, she does not give Michael Gallagher a chance to talk about the story before the publication. If Gallagher had knowledge about the story, he could defend himself or tell his side of the story.

The other fault is that she does not consider the consequences of the stories she writes. She is irrelevant to her sources’ concerns. Even Carter has an opportunity not to reveal the names of the resources; she publishes the name of the woman, who tries to prove that Gallagher was not involved in the crime. The woman commits suicide after the publication of the story about her abortion. Gallagher loses his workers and shuts down his business due to the story.

She also does not confirm the information she gets with other sources. She never questioned the reason of the leakage about a hidden investigation before publication. She always publishes the information she gets with a rush.