Photo by Paul Wellman
Independent Discussion Guidelines
This article raises as many questions about biased reporting by the Independent as it does about the case in question.
I too visited the court house to follow the proceedings and saw a very different version of events. For example one keyissue was the distance Ms Harris had actually traveled into the crosswalk. During the hearing I believe a police witnesssaid Ms Harris would not have faced charges had she been 5 paces into the crossing. Why then was the case not dismissed when the prosecution's main witness to the accident gave testimony that she may indeed have been 5 paces into the crosswalk?
In another omission Mr. Brantingham failed to mention testimony from a witness who helped Ms Harris back to the curb. This witness placed Ms Harris lying in the road very close to the intersection of lane 1 and lane 2 or approximately 7 paces from the curb. These omissions only scratch the surface of untold testimony which supported Ms Harris's defense. Nevertheless they demonstrate an entirely different version of events;ones which strongly suggest that a guilty beyond all reasonable doubt verdict is highly dubious.
Such biased reporting not only diminishes the normally high standards of the Independent, by its omissions it insults the character of the accused. Justice whether in the courthouse or recorded in the pages of the Independent has not been well served.
cosens (anonymous profile)August 19, 2012 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not that I think all the Independent's reporting is unbiased, but I re-read the article and I didn't see anything biased about it. Most of the article was spend quoting the principals in the case and giving a general background and the facts. Obviously, the judge had his own opinion and ruled accordingly.
Botany (anonymous profile)August 19, 2012 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The judge having his opinion and ruling accordingly has nothing to do with bias by the news reporter. In may be the case that most of the article was spent quoting the principals in the case and giving a general background and the facts. However no matter how you dress up the generality of the article, no facts or principals or general background were written in the article which showed any other version to the case than that of the driver and the city. That is self-evidently bias.
cosens (anonymous profile)August 24, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cosens, it is not "self-evidently" bias on the part of the reporter when Harris' self-damning account is included- i.e. she didn't look to her left when crossing. How is this the the reporter's fault? By Harris' own words no one believes she is capable of crossing a street by herself, and she only has herself to thank for that.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)August 24, 2012 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)