> > I think some sort of independent oversight is warranted, but I'm > > uneasy with the privacy issues that public availability would raise.
> In Iowa and many other states (all or almost all, I think), 911 call > recordings are already considered part of the public record and can > be accessed via Freedom of Information Act requests if the police > don't just release them.
> > It's bad enough that the more sensational 911 calls regularly get > > played on TV for their entertainment and commercial value.
> > The last thing I'd want is a cadre of gossips getting their jollies > > from their neighbors' problems.
> But how do you ensure that there is adequate oversight without > allowing the mean-spirited access as well?
Allow the release of transcripts of those calls? But how does anyone know the transcripts were made accurately? Maybe the state could provide free (as in speech) listening to the calls, but not recording them. There's also the theoretical problem of some print organization (e.g. newspaper) printing the transcripts with some stuff inserted as if it were clarifications, which changes the tone of the call from the intended (and perceived) meaning. And there's still the problem of
> > a cadre of gossips getting their jollies > > from their neighbors' problems.
-- -eben QebWenE...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81 A neutron walks into a bar; he asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?" The bartender looks at him, and says "For you, no charge." -- GooberMcFly on Fark
Hactar wrote: > In article <399sq1.r7j.1...@news.alt.net>, > M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net.spam.not> wrote: >> M. Shirley Chong wrote:
>> Don K wrote:
>>> I think some sort of independent oversight is warranted, but I'm >>> uneasy with the privacy issues that public availability would raise. >> In Iowa and many other states (all or almost all, I think), 911 call >> recordings are already considered part of the public record and can >> be accessed via Freedom of Information Act requests if the police >> don't just release them.
>>> It's bad enough that the more sensational 911 calls regularly get >>> played on TV for their entertainment and commercial value.
>>> The last thing I'd want is a cadre of gossips getting their jollies >>> from their neighbors' problems. >> But how do you ensure that there is adequate oversight without >> allowing the mean-spirited access as well?
> Allow the release of transcripts of those calls? But how does anyone > know the transcripts were made accurately? Maybe the state could > provide free (as in speech) listening to the calls, but not recording > them. There's also the theoretical problem of some print organization > (e.g. newspaper) printing the transcripts with some stuff inserted as if > it were clarifications, which changes the tone of the call from the > intended (and perceived) meaning. And there's still the problem of
>>> a cadre of gossips getting their jollies >>> from their neighbors' problems.
The last problem is easiest, to my mind: ignore them. Or point and giggle at them, that they have such tawdry lives that they can get entertainment value from such things.
Transcripts seem to me to have just the problems you state: errors in transcription and an inability to convey the emotional tone of the people speaking, which can be a significant part of the communication that takes place.
And of course, news organisations sometimes portray things inaccurately. If you consider Fox News a legitimate news organisation (I don't), then they serve as an example--they were caught out and out lying via substitution of video shot on different dates.
In article <39d99p.fr.1...@news.alt.net>, M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net.spam.not> wrote:
> M. Shirley Chong wrote:
> >> In Iowa and many other states (all or almost all, I think), 911 call > recordings are > >> already considered part of the public record and can be accessed via > Freedom of > >> Information Act requests if the police don't just release them.
> Hactar wrote:
> > It's a screwed-up world if when someone calls 911 to report drug dealing > > on the street, the drug gangs are then entitled to request the 911 > tape to figure > > out who to retaliate against.
No he didn't. Don K did.
-- -eben QebWenE...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81 Scientist A: A matterbaby is a very unstable particle. Scientist B: What's a matterbaby? Scientist A: I'm doing fine honey, how you doing? -- mrshowrules on Fark
> > In article <Xns9CC151C4977F3opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>, > > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> M. Shirley Chong (eit...@netins.net.spam.not) wrote:
> >> > I don't think I could come up with a law that would allow a > >> > researcher who was not affiliated with a university or a well > >> > known media outlet to do that research and still bar the yahoo > >> > who wants to get their giggles from a 911 call.
> >> Maybe not. I think we should try though. But at some point one > >> side or the other has to shrug and say them's the breaks. I think > >> your example is a good one. I think Don gave a good example on > >> the other side of someone requesting 911 tapes in order to find > >> out who ratted them out.
> > But do we know that Don's example is a real-world one?
> In article <Xns9CC1890AAEBA9opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>, > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote: >> bill van (bill...@skipthis.shaw.ca) wrote:
>>> In article <Xns9CC151C4977F3opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>, >>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> M. Shirley Chong (eit...@netins.net.spam.not) wrote:
>>>>> I don't think I could come up with a law that would allow a >>>>> researcher who was not affiliated with a university or a well >>>>> known media outlet to do that research and still bar the yahoo >>>>> who wants to get their giggles from a 911 call.
>>>> Maybe not. I think we should try though. But at some point one >>>> side or the other has to shrug and say them's the breaks. I think >>>> your example is a good one. I think Don gave a good example on >>>> the other side of someone requesting 911 tapes in order to find >>>> out who ratted them out.
>>> But do we know that Don's example is a real-world one?
Hactar wrote: > In article <39d99p.fr.1...@news.alt.net>, > M. Shirley Chong <eit...@netins.net.spam.not> wrote: >> M. Shirley Chong wrote:
>>>> In Iowa and many other states (all or almost all, I think), 911 call >> recordings are >>>> already considered part of the public record and can be accessed via >> Freedom of >>>> Information Act requests if the police don't just release them. >> Hactar wrote:
>>> It's a screwed-up world if when someone calls 911 to report drug dealing >>> on the street, the drug gangs are then entitled to request the 911 >> tape to figure >>> out who to retaliate against.
> No he didn't. Don K did.
I sincerely apologise, I screwed up the attributions thoroughly.
> And of course, news organisations sometimes portray things inaccurately. If you consider > Fox News a legitimate news organisation (I don't), then they serve as an example--they > were caught out and out lying via substitution of video shot on different dates.
There's a lot of news organizations out there competing for the out-and-out-lying award:
CBS has done fake news. I remember faked documents involving computer fonts.
NBC has done fake news. I remember rigged testing of cars so they would explode.
The New York Times has done fake news stories. I remember a series of made-up journalism reports.
|
