The Shotgun Blog
« Whose side is Pakistan on again? | Main | Ottawa jumps the shark »
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Looks like I'm not the only one who watches CSI
CALGARY/AM770CHQR - Three men have been arrested following a vicious beating that left a 61-year-old Airdrie man clinging to life.
RCMP arrested two of the suspects early Thursday at homes in Airdrie, while the third person was arrested on Tuesday. 21-year-old Brad Ellis has been charged with aggravated assault.The other two suspects are also in their twenties. Initially, RCMP had said upwards of five men, some as young as 15, were involved in the attack.
Police say Ken Valgardson suffered multiple skull fractures after his head was kicked and stomped on by a group of males early Saturday in a parking lot in Airdrie.
Investigators allege he was the target of a revenge attack and the suspects and victim knew eachother through drugs.
It was initially thought teens were involved in the attack, but police now say that was not the case.
While random attacks by groups of teenagers may be occuring within Airdrie and the greater Calgary area, we were led to believe that, in this case, the beaten man involved was innocent because, well, I'm not sure why. I want to know why this attack was attributed first to teenagers beating innocent people at random, as I had posted here earlier, even though there was no proof at the time, and I want to know what good was to come out of speculating on the case in the realm of the public media.
So, now the question is, How much of the original report was due to the tendency of the media to report the most sensational news, news which happened to be speculative rather than factual? More specifically, Why did RCMP Sgt. Patrick Webb, who was the original source cited in this article, assume the attack was simply random before anyone knew the facts of the case?
Pretty weak.
Posted by Rob Huck on October 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f5291669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Looks like I'm not the only one who watches CSI:
Comments
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-26 1:28:33 PM
gee, cdn media being biased, what a strange concept. maybe all those ryerson downtown toronto graduates should think before they report. the world doesnt revolve around toronto ethics
Posted by: john a. | 2006-10-26 6:20:39 PM
You need to learn to read. The officer said, "Our best speculation is it was just random ... they just decided to beat somebody up." That was "OUR BEST SPECULATION", not a conclusion. Robbery is the most likely motive for attacks and that was ruled out. They also might have initially had no indication that the man knew the others. If he is in the drug biz, he might well have denied knowing them initially so as to try to keep that out of the investigation.
Even The Sun, which is not much of a newspaper at all, got it right in their original subheading when they said, "Airdrie RCMP suspect vicious attack on 61-year-old was random violence by group of youths." Yes, they SUSPECT it was. They did not CONCLUDE anything.
So maybe you feel you wasted your time writing a blog entry about an event that appears to not have happened as you thought it did, but that should teach you not to jump to conclusions based on suspicions and speculation especially when those words are used in the reporting.
"Pretty weak."
Pot, meet the kettle.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-10-26 8:35:16 PM
Why should the police have a case solved, and be 100% correct when they talk to the media in the first few days.
Cut them some slack, let them do their job.
Even if they DO know, WHY JEOPARDIZE THIER CASE by blasting out their informed suspicions till they have a CASE!!!!!
Otherwise the trial is mistried before it even gets to court, due to public opinion. The police could be sued for maligning someone (even if the police are right) and we all lose.
Justice proceeds slower than the media like. They have a deadline, the media have to inform the public and spin is ALWAYS put on anything the media reports.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-10-27 8:50:24 AM
Trusting information supplied by the press is risky at the best of times.
Trusting spin from law enforcement that is respun by the press has historically been a fool's game.Anyone who has followed a'developing story'by the media understands that speculation and fact are often fluid and misrepresented as the same thing.
Nevertheless,this was an excellent catalyst to a forum of discussion on teen swarming in this country.A serious problem that I believe exists literally from coast to coast.It is not unknown in my own neighborhood.
I for one appreciated the insights many here had on our current society,families and our morals,or lack thereof.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-27 10:01:41 AM
Mark Logan,
First day: "We don't exactly know the facts of this case but we think it's a bunch of teenagers attacking innocent civilians at random."
Second day: "We arrested three young adults who have some sort of drug connection with the victim. Oh, yeah, and this had nothing to do with a gang of kids terrorizing the community, but teenagers shouldn't expect an apology from us for badmouthing their entire generation."
What's wrong with the police saying that they don't know why a man was beaten? Wouldn't that be a more reasonable course of action than voicing their unfounded "SUSPICIONS" with which an unknowing public may "CONCLUDE" that a gang of teenagers is terrorizing the community?
The result is that the next time police and media wish to convey a potential threat, the trust level of the public will be diminished.
Call me kettle if you will, but at least I posted about this event immediately in the same format I had posted earlier. The Sun, which put this story on their front page on two days, have now buried the latest article back on page 10.
It's irresponsible.
And weak.
Posted by: Rob Huck | 2006-10-27 1:07:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.