The New Jersey Supreme Court stood up for transparency this week with its ruling

Question

The New Jersey Supreme Court stood up for transparency this week with its ruling that dashboard-camera videos must be made public when fatal force is used by the police. This is hardly a settled issue in many states as lawmakers consider varying regulations about police videos that critics warn leave police departments too often empowered to deny public disclosure. In Pennsylvania, for example, the General Assembly enacted a law last month exempting police video and audio recordings from the public records law and giving police departments wide latitude to refuse requests for public disclosure. While the law is nominally aimed at expanding the use of body and dashboard cameras, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania cautioned that the wide discretion granted to the police and the need to appeal denials in court will make it “nearly impossible” for the public and news media to obtain timely videos. Photo Police investigating the aftermath of a car chase and police shooting in Rutherford, New Jersey, in 2014. North Jersey Media Group sued after reporters were rebuffed in their request for information, including video, of the shooting. Credit Tariq Zehawi/Northjersey.com, via Associated Press The debate over disclosure has intensified amid the steady stream of videos of the tragic shootings of African-American citizens by police officers. About two dozen states and the District of Columbia have taken up the issue of how to regulate release of the videos in the past two years, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. In most cases, the committee said, the tendency has been to restrict public access. The New Jersey court presented a clear affirmation of transparency as a basic principle that need not be secondary to the need to protect potential criminal evidence, which the police cite in keeping video recordings secret. “Non-disclosure of dash-cam videos can undermine confidence in law enforcement,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner declared in the ruling, which was unanimous. “It can also fuel the perception that information is being concealed,” he noted. The court ruled for the North Jersey Media Group, which sued after reporters were rebuffed in their request for information, including video, concerning a 2014 police shooting. The court also ruled that law enforcement agencies must release the names of officers involved in fatal shootings. Tragic experience across America is proving body and dash cams can be very useful. But they must be properly regulated and not left solely in the control of secrecy-minded police departments, as is now often the case. The issue can be complex, but there are workable ways to deal with questions about when cameras should be turned on and off, for example, and how to protect the rights and privacy of individuals seen or heard on the videos. New regulations weighted to favor the police will only invite more controversial incidents and suspicious obfuscation. It is a positive sign that lawmakers have lately been opting for pilot programs and study groups rather than rushing into enactment of regulations, according to the Urban Institute. There may be no holding back on the general advance of technology, but human rights and public transparency must not be sacrificed in the process.

Using the article above please answer the following questions

1. Did the article meet the standards (objective, accurate, thorough) for News reporting?

2. Does the article show stereotypes or prejudice toward people or of a particular race, gender, religion, or group?

3. Did the article leave out any important background information?

4. What is the thesis statement? List three evidences to support the thesis.

Explanation / Answer

The standards of the above article were partially met for news reporting. The objective of the article was to bring forth the varying regulations of police videos and audios to the public. As a citizen of a country, it is every individual's right to know the reason for police shootings taking place or them chasing down a culprit. With the government bodies varying in their stance with regard to making the police videos public was necessary for the law abiders to know. Thus, the objectivity of the article was bang on.

However, when it comes to meeting the standards of news reporting, the article was not up to the mark in syntax, punctuations and pragmatics. Some sentences even lacked continuity due to unnecessary punctuations.

In terms of accuracy, the article was accurate and precise. It brought a few important things to the public's notice, like the law of making police videos public for the citizen's knowledge. The varying stances of the lawmakers, where The New Jersey Supreme Court stood up for making police videos public whereas, the General Assembly exempted police video and audio recordings from the public records law.

It was an informative article.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.