Nevada Press Association The best in Nevada journalism since 1924
Related Articles
I’m copying a story from the South Carolina Press Association’s newsletter this morning that traces The Post and Courier’s coverage of a video that exploded across the nation’s headlines.
It touches on a number of issues, such as police body-cameras and victims’ rights, that are relevant in Nevada and nationwide.
Here’s the story:
It was a tragic and challenging day for the news staff of The Post and Courier Tuesday as they broke an important but sad story and dealt with the release of a video showing a white North Charleston police officer shooting an unarmed black man in the back.
From negotiating for the timely release of the video to covering their bases in news coverage for print and digital, the news team had a busy day contacting police, politicians, the victim’s family, national experts and civil rights leaders. They also offered commentary urging calm and healing and pointed out to readers the distinctions between the way North Charleston has handled this shooting and a similar event that caused such anguish in Ferguson, Missouri.
Mitch Pugh, executive editor of The Post and Courier, said: “We broke this story about two hours before the national media, but were unable to post the video immediately due to an embargo. However, we did independently confirm the contents of the video and report with authority and what was about to transpire. ABC News and The Post and Courier were the first to post still images from the video.
Pugh continued, “Unfortunately, due to confusion over the embargo and the quickly escalating nature of the story, the New York Times beat all of us by a few minutes posting the video. Once we posted the video, our biggest challenge was working with our tech folks to ensure we could handle the onslaught of digital traffic. We had a roughly 30-minute span where the site was incredibly slow, but that was resolved fairly quickly. It was also amazing to see how powerful a role social media played. Our Facebook post with the video embedded has reached more than five million people and has been watched more than 759,000 times.
“We were fortunate to have a couple of hours to prepare. We had the information and video under embargo and were able to do some significant reporting and background work in that time. It also allowed us to marshal our reporting forces and develop a digital strategy, including social media. The days to come will present the more significant challenge. We need to put this story into national and historical context and dig deep into the many still unanswered questions.”
As Pugh said, social media provided good insight and interaction. Post and Courier staffers worked around the clock to share news real-time on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Jeffrey Collins of AP provided an interesting comment on Twitter: “One thing to think about _ if the person who taped North Charleston police shooting went to SLED 1st, we wouldn’t be seeing it until trial.”
Post and Courier staffers were featured Tuesday night and Wednesday morning on TV news shows including MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Morning Joe and CNN’s New Day.
“This case shows the need to revise the law concerning the openness of autopsy reports,” said Bill Rogers, executive director of SCPA. “If this video hadn’t been made, the autopsy could have been the only way the public would have learned the victim was shot in the back.” A bill to require cause of death reports to be released has passed the S.C. Senate, but hasn’t been acted on by the House.
Related: News organizations were justified in posting the graphic video, Poynter’s Al Tompkins wrote on Tuesday night. “This video goes well beyond its shock value. The public has a need to know that police are acting within the law and this video draws that truth into question. Journalists are in the truth-telling business. Sometimes the truth is hard to watch. But the public has to be able to trust that when police make mistakes, journalists will hold them accountable, just as when the police shoot a suspect out of legitimate fear for their safety, journalists will report that fairly and aggressively, too.” (Poynter)
1