We often wonder why the press is so one sided in their coverage of Occupy Events. We do understand that our current journalism standard is to cut and paste press releases put out by municipalities, lobbying groups, and corporations. In doing so the slanted mindset of whomever created and approved said press releases reflects the tone the public is allowed to be brainwashed with.
Here is a perfect example of slanted language being used to demonize a group. This was not put out by some rightwing front group but by the Portland Police Bureau.
On Saturday, April 21, 2012 at about 11:00 p.m. Portland Police officers assigned to Central Precinct became aware of a group attempting to re-occupy Chapman Square. PPB supervisors went to Chapman Square and observed approximately 30 people congregating in the middle of the park.
At 11:30 p.m. Central Precinct sergeants walked through the park and contacted the group telling them the park closed to the public at midnight. The group responded with argumentative and aggressive behavior, shouting, "who's park? Our park," and "lets go back to our home!"
Chanting=Shouting?
AND Chanting=Aggressive Behavior?
For clarification:
Aggressive is:
1.
likely to attack: showing a readiness or having a tendency to attack or do harm to others
2.
attacking: attacking or taking action without provocation or without waiting for an enemy to make the first move
Behavior is
defined as:
b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
Continuing:
Chief Michael Reese and Mayor Sam Adams were informed of the clear intention by this group to "reoccupy" Chapman Square. Per their direction, Central Precinct Command, Sergeants, and Officers entered the park and told the group the park was closed, that had to leave, and if they did not leave they would be booked in jail. PPB personnel communicated their understanding that "reoccupying the park" was a political statement that could result in arrests, which could (?) be performed peacefully and respectfully.
Did the police imply they were not going to observe protocol and threaten to escalate?
After this message was communicated, demonstrators became hostile, argumentative, and defiant and refused to leave the park. They were told they would be given a short time to voluntarily leave and anyone that remained in the park after its closure would be arrested. After further discussion between the group and Central Precinct officers, all members of the group left the park voluntarily. While the group left the park, they remained gathered just outside the park on the southwest corner of Fourth Avenue and SW Madison. On that corner, demonstrators became mildly aggressive and repeatedly threatened that the real confrontation would happen on May Day (May 1st). May Day is traditionally an opportunity for labor groups and activists to peacefully protest throughout Portland. This year, many sources have indicated that some groups are interested in causing more extreme civil unrest through more direct, disruptive action. PPB officers understood the threats of this group to signify their intention to cause direct civil disobedience on May 1st.
So saying they won't leave and objecting to impositions on free speech is now:
hostile, argumentative, and defiant
So police officers have no way to process their reaction to individuals that object to their treatment? Is obedience the publics only option? They did leave the park as noted so they were compliant. They just said mean things like civil rights, freedom of speech, and First Amendment and that hurt the Po-Po's fe-fe's, did I read that correctly?
AND
This same group that was already
hostile, argumentative, and defiant
Was saying they were going to be active on May 1st?
demonstrators became mildly aggressive and repeatedly threatened that the real confrontation would happen on May Day (May 1st)
The same group that obeyed as asked, abet with reservations, was making threats? Were they specific detailed threats or were they the angry utterances one hears when someone feels their rights have been violated? Could you be more specific?
Like this:
extreme civil unrest
Are they going to riot? Because civil unrest as defined is a riot and you used the modifier of extreme. I can't imagine anything more extreme than a riot, but what would I know, I remember watching southern California burning regularly growing up. Perhaps they made some new chants that will hurt your fe-fe's again. From the police's inability to determine real problems from angry ramblings disturbs me more than the prospect of people in the streets, gasp, not obeying!
Based on the initial compliance with park rules, officers were able to withdraw from the park and attend to more pressing public safety matters. Some officers remained in the area to monitor the demonstrators who chose to not reenter the park. However a short time later, an officer reported seeing one of the demonstrators re-enter Chapman Square then go on to climb on the elk statue in the middle of Southwest Main. During Occupy Portland's occupation of Chapman and Lownsdale Squares, the Elk Statue was considerably damaged. Donations through the Regional Arts Council had refurbished the elk at great expense. The demonstrator also tore down some of the green temporary fencing in the park. Officers responded by taking the demonstrator into custody.
How did the protester do both at the same time? Either he was in the park or he was on the elk. And you note the elk is in the street.
re-enter Chapman Square then go on to climb on the elk statue in the middle of Southwest Main
This just makes me think you have been watching Monty Python:
at great expense
Are you sure it wasn't a moose?
Once in custody, officers learned that the demonstrator is a 15-year- old. The 15-year-old was referred to Juvenile Court on Trespass in the Second Degree, Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree, Interfering with a Police Officer and charged with a city code related to being on the statue (20.12.070). This was the 15-year-old's second Occupy related arrest and he was released to his mother.
Cited and released would have covered most of that paragraph. But I will discuss my thoughts on that further on.
In advance of May Day, the Portland Police Bureau and Mayor Sam Adams want to remind the community that demonstrations of free speech are an important part of our community. However, violations of the law will not be tolerated. We encourage the community to work with PPB representatives to ensure a peaceful and safe event.
How can we trust the police?
violations of the law will not be tolerated
You have cost the city millions in fines and that hasn't even include the Occupy related stuff. I hope Dammit Janet gets a nice chunk from you for getting peppersprayed for being too near a woman that a police officer decided to silence. In a spectacularly heinous way I might add:
*****
Public Information Officer:
Lt. Robert King
Robert.King@portlandoregon.gov
Desk: 503-823-0010
Pager: 503-790-1779
Alternate PIO:
Sgt. Pete Simpson
Peter.Simpson@portlandoregon.gov
Desk: 503-823-0830
Pager: 503-790-1779
Portland Police Bureau
1111 SW 2nd Ave, Suite 1526
Portland, Oregon 97204
Final thought:
I notice your press releases in relation to Occupy are extremely detailed, reach a conclusion about guilt or innocence, and are exceptionally long. Many of your non-Occupy related press releases could be described as terse at best.
Why is that?