The American media is not a cop-watch programme - Al Jazeera English | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

The American media is not a cop-watch programme – Al Jazeera English

Published

4 years ago

 on


Imagine believing police reports. After all of the independent autopsies, the cellphone video recordings, the body-cam footage found to be “not consistent with the police report” imagine still assuming these reports to be a record of the facts as they occurred. After the police obfuscation of Laquan McDonald’s murder, the toy guns of Baltimore, the evidence planting, the DNA exonerations, imagine still reporting police narratives as truth and still writing sentences for teleprompter scripts like “the police officer thought the suspect was reaching for a gun”. Imagine taking US justice seriously after what happened to Kalief Browder.

In a fair society, an institution that has consistently proven itself so willing to misrepresent facts on race and violence that it has become a running joke for generations of Black stand-up comedians might have its “reports” viewed with suspicion. In American society, the media is embedded with the police, just as it is in American imperialism where journalists are embedded with the US army, hitching a ride in army convoys, observing conflict from the perspective of one belligerent and yet performing objectivity.

The media is not a check on power when it comes to the police. It is not a cop-watch programme. It humanises a violent, paramilitary institution, it publishes its mugshots and aids in surveillance, it disciplines populations into obedience and is the velvet glove to order’s iron fist. It amplifies “official” narratives.

It normalises the presumption of police innocence. It takes the police at their word: police do not claim something happened, their report is what happened. Trial verdicts do not claim the convict did it; the convict did it, as can be seen by the trial verdict. The law through the doctrine of “cognisable offences” or “probable cause” sacralises the cop, elevating their notepads and testimony to a gospel truth and the media runs to the town people to preach. Functionally, the media is an arm of policing.

There are no prime time television programmes about life escaping the fining, harassment, groping and physical assault of the roving, murdering warlords of white supremacy and capital. No character-driven dramas about surviving the colony’s paramilitary forces ushering in an orderly gentrification and the accumulation of lives and living spaces to make room for yuppie royalty. No shows for the beaten to watch their batterers being frog-marched out of their neighbourhoods if only on screen. Instead “Live PD” “The First 48”, “Investigative Discovery” and the constant proliferation of cop dramas lionise the colony’s henchmen.

In the media, the badge-wearing violent are heroes and heroines sweeping away crime with an unwavering commitment to honour and fairness. They are depicted in the same flattering light colonists depicted their pioneer forebearers sweeping away “native savagery” a century ago. In place of the pith helmet and moustache are the cop haircut and the badge, but the arms remain akimbo.

Television, whether deliberately or not, complements police power and permits no abolitionist perspectives. Dick Wolf is to American policing what John Wayne was to US empire.

Cable news, at a moment when people demand the abolishing of the police and the voicing of different futures, invites police chiefs who provide “examples of police leadership”. Liberal hosts parrot activist language of social justice in monologues only to then give platforms to commanders of the institution the activists protest against. The invited police chiefs then proceed to patronise protesters as “not only anarchists”, as if being radically against the order of bleach-drinking and potato-sack kidnappings is something to be ashamed of.

Anchors on centrist networks offer, in place of analysis, tears and declarations of shock at witnessing the sadism of the George Floyd murder. Transient outrage takes up time that could otherwise be filled with examining the police institution itself. Answers are tapped out of the same on-hand Black liberal academics instead of thinkers in the Black radical tradition who, since slavery, have been devoted to the critique of the forceful capture and destruction of Black people.

Anchors cry or look into the camera and call the president a thug but offer no mea culpa for complicity in the policing project, which has now come full circle. The American policing project today bears similarity to the Nazi regime which applied colonialist procedures to Europeans previously reserved exclusively for the colonies – the arbitrary arrests, the slave patrol, forced disappearances, etc.

Today, political dissidents and activists, including those who are white, face practices previously reserved for the Black underclass, the unhomed and the immigrants. It is not only in the colonies and “postcolonies” of Africa, Asia and Latin America that “the policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action… advise [the people] by means of rifle butts and napalm not to budge”. Today, it also happens in the business districts of American metropolises.

It is no longer unimaginable that it will be white people in the suburbs, corporate offices and Democratic Party headquarters who are next to be thrown against the hood of a cruiser or pushed into unmarked police vehicles.

However intense the display or forceful the condemnation, punditry is all sound and fury signifying nothing. Worse than nothing. Liberal pundits carry water for police. They sell “retraining” and “reform” and the other PR catchwords police keep in their back pockets for whenever one of their killings spills out onto the national stage.

They effect a highway robbery of abolitionist efforts. They suggest beginning a conversation – a project that not only reveals the depths of the disregard paid to the history of Black outcry and opposition to racist state violence but disingenuously presents dialogue as a solution rather than their business.

Individual racists cannot be persuaded away from racism at a faster rate than white supremacist society produces racists. Dialogue is a scam.

Police-embedded media is particularly harmful at this moment because it shares the media landscape with an expanding white nationalist news media. Nightly, the most powerful white nationalist television network in the world attempts to incite white mobs against protesters. Every night their hosts look directly into the camera and warn about anarchist protesters and unruly thugs coming to get the viewer and their property – assured, of course, that their audience is not out protesting against racial injustice.

Every night they inch closer to telling their viewers to grab their pangas and “cut down the tall trees”. They carry the mantle of those who incited mobs of white people to massacre Black people in 1919 Elaine, Arkansas in 1921 Tulsa, Oklahoma and in a hundred other “race riots”.

Every night they use their chyrons – like the white nationalist, lynch-mob apologist newspapers before them used their editorial pages – to incite violence against non-white people, disfigure and criminalise the memories of the victims of racist violence and excuse their killers.

Their hosts inaugurated their television careers accused of making Nazi salutes and their chief writers get caught writing for neo-Nazi websites. These are the people cop-embedded journalists refer to as colleagues.

Another public sphere is possible – one that does not consider “the reckoning on race” in the newsrooms as being expressed as a more diverse team. Diversity understood to be different bodies articulating the same liberal perspectives is possible only when power genuinely believes Black people have nothing valuable to contribute other than their bodies. Black radicals are a dime a dozen, and yet they are barred from interpreting on camera the uprising their labour has birthed.

A media is possible that can analyse the culture of anti-Black pogroms without needing to be spurred on by a bystander capturing a pleasure-killing on a cellphone. A media that does not call friends white nationalist journalists who call every lynching victim “no angel” in order to defend the lyncher. One that has no truck with journalists seeking to frame Black people for their own murder any more than they would with those rooting through Holocaust victims’ pasts searching for a sin to hand over to Nazi apologists.

One day we will have a media that is no longer embedded with the cops, one that will not smile at kneeling cops photos, or at the National Guard Macarena-dancing with liberal protesters, or any other domestic version of American soldiers giving soccer balls to Iraqi children as it kills them in the background. One day neither police reports, nor courts will be taken seriously, and the cop-embedded media that dresses henchman up as heroes will be abolished and replaced with a continuous feed of freedom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. 

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version