I have no words....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11673644
Please watch the embedded video (if you want to skip ahead to the relevant bit, skip ahead to when there is about 1 minute and 15 seconds remaining on the video). The background is that the cops have shot someone dead and there are allegations by the deceased's partner (who was on-site) that, if proven, would amount to a very excessive use of force by the police. I have no idea who is right.
A journalist asked the Assistant Commissioner "Do you back the police and the Armed Offenders Squad"? Frankly, this is an extraordinarily dumb and ambiguous question. It can mean "Do you support the police and AOS?" on a general level and "Do you consider the shooting justified?", which certainly is not for the police to decide. Regardless of what one thinks of the AC's answer (I think he was quite silly to fall for the bait and to comment on whether the shooting was justified), I don't think it's right for "journalists" to twist them. Look at what Stuff have done with his words:
There is a sub-heading that says 'This was unavoidable'. Under that sub-heading, the Assistant Commission is quoted to have said: "'This [the shooting] unavoidable,' he said". Beyond the fact that the sentence makes no sense grammatically, it left out the very important word "appears" in the sentence and also eliminated the context later on where the AC stated that this investigation is at an early stage and that the police will need to get all the facts etc. In my view, the way the article was written gave a very strong impression that the AC expressed a concluded view that the shooting was justified when this clearly did not appear to be the AC's intent. In case anyone thinks Stuff got this quote from another media conference, the fact that they quoted the Assistant Commissioner's words about how the police responded according to their training etc earlier tells me that they were at the same one.
Bad form, Stuff. Bad form.
Trusted
