Any other time we rip on the press, but when it comes to cops doing something wrong we take the press word for word, and think that is the only story.

I recall one incident where it took the local press several hours to even get the location right. They had it taking place on intersections of streets that run parallel.

We're supposed to trust that they get the "what" right when they have trouble with the "where."

I have to agree with clydesdale. About the best I hope for from the press is that something happened and a general description of what it was--shooting, stabbing, indecent exposure, auto accident, whatever. Beyond that, we're dealing with an increasing amount of uncertainty. And when it comes to who did what to whom--I'd as soon read Kafka or Vonnegut for truth.

Tell me how probable it is that the press got this wrong? 0.0? 0.1? More?

So, then, is this an "isolated incident" where the facts were so apparent, that the press had no way of screwing it up?

I realize full well that the press gets stories right much of the time. How can you screw up a zoning decision or the results of a U.S. Senate vote?

However, the sloppiness of the press in general disgusts me. They are so eager to get any story out there before their competition that they will print or air "stories" before they check the facts.

I'm not saying that police officers are never guilty of misconduct. That would be stupid. What I am saying is that relying on the press to give you the full story of alleged police misconduct is to base an argument, or a belief, on shaky ground.

Granted, the press is the only way most mortals have of knowing such things (unless they happen to have the misfortune of being involved in the incident), but we have to realize the limitations of the "knowledge" we get from the press.

But, of course, the police either issue a report six months later or, as in the Fairfax, Virginia "accidental" killing, write a report but never issue it. Most of the lack of facts can be laid at the desk of the police chief who would rather have people criticize the press story than know the full facts of the police action. If we waited for public disclosure of all the facts, there would be NO discussion of the work performance of these dedicated public servants.

If you want the truth, require 24/7 video of all police activities. It could be done (but not if the errant officers, like those in St. George, MO, turn off or "lose" the tape and aren't disciplained).

My ex-wife is a news paper editor now, therefore newspaper editors are bad.

I spoke with a reporter at a Support the Troops rally at the start of the first Gulf War (while I was waiting to go to boot camp) and was badly hacked and re-worded (180 degree reversals of some statements) by the reporter in a way that colored my whole experience with the USMC, so all reporters are writing for their own agendas & have no regard for the truth.

But seriously, I think so much of the media is SO political that they have completely lost the significance of the first ammendment. As I read the first ammendment in regard to the media, I see that it is there to ensure the freedom to report the truth. In action, I only ever see the media convey what promotes an agenda, with just pasing glances at reality.