It’s hard to determine what is funnier about the brouhaha in Boston this week: the marketers who placed a series of lighted signs around that city, the grotesque over-reaction of the mayor and prosecutors, or the complete failure of the media to engage in anything resembling critical thought.
For those who missed it, here’s what happened. Adult Swim, a company owned by Turner Broadcasting, decided to stir up some hype about an upcoming movie. The movie will be a long-form version of Adult Swim’s late-night cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force. If you’ve never heard of the show, it doesn’t matter. All you need to know is that two of the recurring characters in it are the moonites, a pair of moon creatures who look something like the shields in the Space Invaders arcade game. The moonites are fond of displaying their middle fingers.
To create a buzz about the upcoming movie, Adult Swim hired an ad agency. They, in turn, hired a viral marketing group that placed ads around several cities. The ads looked something like a lite-brite, and featured one of the moonites displaying his middle finger.
The glorified light-brite pictures were on display for several weeks. Then, one day, somebody decided that the brightly lit, prominently displayed picture of a moonite looked like a bomb.
Well, of course. Every good bomber knows that he should make his device as noticeable as possible.
Cue panic. Somewhere, Orson Wells was laughing hysterically as the Boston Police shut down most of the city, bomb squads detonated lite-brites, and the Mayor advised everyone to be calm.
Not long after Boston engaged Total Freak-out Mode™, the evil-doers were caught. They were quick to explain that the ads were not bombs, but an attempt to promote a movie. That did not mollify the powers-that-be in Boston. They wanted blood. And so, it appears, did the media.
The two men were charged with felonies, and released on $2,500 bonds. Meanwhile, the cable news channels, with Fox in the lead, did their best to paint them as the worst criminals since Bonnie and Clyde.
Then began the silly statements. The Prosecutor informed the media (in serious and solemn tones) that these men had designed their ads to look like bombs. Got that? They designed the brightly lit pictures of cartoon characters to look like bombs. The Prosecutor said this after they had explained that the light boxes were advertisements, designed to promote a movie, not scare people.
Not one of the reporters showed any skepticism about this patently absurd statement. Not one asked how many bombs looked like lite-brites. Not one asked why, if these men wanted to scare people by making devices that looked like bombs, they didn’t make devices that…well…looked like bombs.
But that press conference paled in comparison to the one held when the two marketers were released from jail. Rather than play the role expected of them (they had a choice, humbly apologetic or abjectly groveling) they opened by saying that they would only discuss hairstyles of the 1970s. They then refused to answer any questions that were not hair-related.
The reporters were apoplectic. They repeatedly demanded to know why they weren’t taking the situation seriously. One even implied that their refusal to answer questions could result in a longer prison sentence.
While I have no strong opinions about the marketing ploys used here, it was gratifying to see reporters get so frustrated. Their anger was a direct result of the men’s refusal to do what is expected, and give them the sound bites they needed to plug into their already-written stories. Had they chosen to act like real journalists, these reporters would have been asking whether or not the response to the ads was proportional. They would have been asking why Boston hit the panic button after the boxes had been on display for several weeks, and why other cities where the same gimmick was used hadn’t reacted. They would have asked why men who were supposedly trying to play a prank on the whole city posted to their website footage of themselves placing the boxes.
In short, they would have tried thinking critically, rather than trying to shoehorn the events into a drama suitable for a 30-second breaking news alert. They would have tried doing their jobs.
So, I’ll have to revise my initial statement. The funniest thing about the events in Boston this week is the frustration of reporters who long ago forgot that their job is ask questions and think critically, not to shape the news to be titillating.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Let's have a fair trial before the hanging
One of the rarely mentioned duties of a Prosecutor is to decline to press charges. In cases where evidence is insufficient, where testimony appears to be less than trustworthy, or where there is good reason to believe that the crime in question never happened, the Prosecutor’s duty is to not prosecute. It is also the Prosecutor’s duty to obey the law and act ethically. Mike Nifong, the Prosecutor in the Duke University rape case, appears to have forgotten every one of those duties.
In that case, three Duke university lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper at a party. After charges were filed, they were paraded before the media and vilified as rapists. And let’s face it: most people wanted it to be true. While no sane person would ever wish for a person to be raped, honesty dictates that we admit there was more than a little schadenfreude involved in the case. Besides, it made sense. Raping a stripper is exactly the sort of thing one might expect rich, over privileged frat boys to do.
Really, the whole case fit perfectly with any number of common prejudices. The men involved in the case were the sons of privilege. They were rich, good-looking, and before charges were filed against them, had every reason to expect a life utterly devoid of the sorts of money worries and insecurity about the future common to the rest of humanity. One just knew that these guys were guilty. This was just another example of the highborn abusing the poor and minorities. The thrill of seeing the high brought low was just too great to entertain other possibilities.
That attitude is understandable. But it is not one that a Prosecutor should allow to color his judgment. In retrospect, however, it appears that no one wanted the Duke players to be guilty more than Nifong. It was great publicity, and it must have felt good to bring those arrogant frat boys to justice, to pull them from their gilded lives and slam them into a steel and concrete box.
Nifong promised justice. He made bombastic statements to the media. He let the world know that he would lay these ogres low. All of that is to be expected. Prosecutors are, after all, elected officials, and the voters don’t want to hear about shaky evidence and questionable testimony.
All of that is completely understandable, even if it is less than laudable. But Nifong’s later actions were inexcusable, and ought to land him in jail. Nifong ordered DNA testing of material found on the victim.
A private lab performed the testing, and the results indicated that the samples included DNA from four men. But the same evidence indicated that none of the accused, and no member of the Duke University lacrosse team, could be the source of the DNA.
At this point, Nifong’s legal and moral duty was clear: he had to tell the defense. Disclosure laws state that the Prosecution does not get to withhold evidence, and they certainly don’t get to hide information that could be exculpatory. Nifong also appears to have lied to the court about having that evidence.
Eventually, the rape charges were dropped. But not before the three accused men were painted as rapists, and not before Duke University as a whole saw its reputation damaged.
Of course, we’ll probably never know what exactly happened on the night in question. The lacrosse players may well have gotten out of hand. But the evidence to support an allegation of forcible rape had fallen apart, and Nifong knew it.
Nifong now faces the possibility of disbarment for his actions. But that is not enough. Prosecutors, perhaps more than any other civil servant, wield the ability to bring the whole power of the state to bear against individuals. It is an awesome responsibility, and a betrayal of the trust the public invests in them can never be taken lightly. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard, because they carry with them the power to destroy lives.
Nifong will probably not face jail. Sovereign immunity almost guarantees that he will never be the subject of prosecution. He has abused the sacred trust of the public, pursued injustice rather than justice, and lead a witch hunt against three men he had good reason to believe were innocent of the charges he had filed.
In that case, three Duke university lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper at a party. After charges were filed, they were paraded before the media and vilified as rapists. And let’s face it: most people wanted it to be true. While no sane person would ever wish for a person to be raped, honesty dictates that we admit there was more than a little schadenfreude involved in the case. Besides, it made sense. Raping a stripper is exactly the sort of thing one might expect rich, over privileged frat boys to do.
Really, the whole case fit perfectly with any number of common prejudices. The men involved in the case were the sons of privilege. They were rich, good-looking, and before charges were filed against them, had every reason to expect a life utterly devoid of the sorts of money worries and insecurity about the future common to the rest of humanity. One just knew that these guys were guilty. This was just another example of the highborn abusing the poor and minorities. The thrill of seeing the high brought low was just too great to entertain other possibilities.
That attitude is understandable. But it is not one that a Prosecutor should allow to color his judgment. In retrospect, however, it appears that no one wanted the Duke players to be guilty more than Nifong. It was great publicity, and it must have felt good to bring those arrogant frat boys to justice, to pull them from their gilded lives and slam them into a steel and concrete box.
Nifong promised justice. He made bombastic statements to the media. He let the world know that he would lay these ogres low. All of that is to be expected. Prosecutors are, after all, elected officials, and the voters don’t want to hear about shaky evidence and questionable testimony.
All of that is completely understandable, even if it is less than laudable. But Nifong’s later actions were inexcusable, and ought to land him in jail. Nifong ordered DNA testing of material found on the victim.
A private lab performed the testing, and the results indicated that the samples included DNA from four men. But the same evidence indicated that none of the accused, and no member of the Duke University lacrosse team, could be the source of the DNA.
At this point, Nifong’s legal and moral duty was clear: he had to tell the defense. Disclosure laws state that the Prosecution does not get to withhold evidence, and they certainly don’t get to hide information that could be exculpatory. Nifong also appears to have lied to the court about having that evidence.
Eventually, the rape charges were dropped. But not before the three accused men were painted as rapists, and not before Duke University as a whole saw its reputation damaged.
Of course, we’ll probably never know what exactly happened on the night in question. The lacrosse players may well have gotten out of hand. But the evidence to support an allegation of forcible rape had fallen apart, and Nifong knew it.
Nifong now faces the possibility of disbarment for his actions. But that is not enough. Prosecutors, perhaps more than any other civil servant, wield the ability to bring the whole power of the state to bear against individuals. It is an awesome responsibility, and a betrayal of the trust the public invests in them can never be taken lightly. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard, because they carry with them the power to destroy lives.
Nifong will probably not face jail. Sovereign immunity almost guarantees that he will never be the subject of prosecution. He has abused the sacred trust of the public, pursued injustice rather than justice, and lead a witch hunt against three men he had good reason to believe were innocent of the charges he had filed.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Some ideas are just plain stupid
On NPR last night, I heard President Bush complain that those who oppose his troop buildup are criticizing the plan before it has a chance to work.
Well, yes, George. They are. Because it won't work. Some ideas can be declared stupid before they are tested. If I were to plan to build a house on the moon, and to transport the building materials there using a powerful catapult, there would be no need to test the plan before declaring it stupid.
In Iraq, the problems run deeper than a lack of troops. The destruction of Hussein's regime allowed centuries of religious and tribal conflict to come to the surface. Those problems are not easily fixable, and all the troops in the world could hope only to keep a lid on things temporarily.
So, there is no need to give Bush's surge strategy a chance to work before sneering at it.
Well, yes, George. They are. Because it won't work. Some ideas can be declared stupid before they are tested. If I were to plan to build a house on the moon, and to transport the building materials there using a powerful catapult, there would be no need to test the plan before declaring it stupid.
In Iraq, the problems run deeper than a lack of troops. The destruction of Hussein's regime allowed centuries of religious and tribal conflict to come to the surface. Those problems are not easily fixable, and all the troops in the world could hope only to keep a lid on things temporarily.
So, there is no need to give Bush's surge strategy a chance to work before sneering at it.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
