Jackson Free Press

Harvey Johnson is not the only one who lost the mayoral primary last week. So did fear. Yes: fear suffered a resounding loss in Jackson.

Of course, a lot of folks—who horse trade and specialize in fearmongering and negativity—don't want you to know that. They will tell you that, "See, people are scared to death in Jackson. That's why they voted for Frank Melton." Bull cookies.

The truth is, out of about 131,713 Jacksonians of voting age, 27,982 of them (21 percent) voted for Melton in a primary that most people—Rick Whitlow a notable exception—believed would determine the next mayor of Jackson. It was an important election. It was well publicized. People were talking about it all over the city. And only 33 percent of Jacksonians turned out for either candidate—63 percent of those for Melton and 37 for Harvey Johnson.

What's going on here?

No question, Johnson did not connect with enough voters. We can argue until the Saints win the Super Bowl over whose fault that was—I vote for a combination of his own fault, his campaign staff's and the pitiful "lamestream" media, as they're called in the blogosphere. In fact, the media get their fair share of the blame for "balancing" FBI statistics showing dramatic drops in crime with quotes from Melton accusing the mayor of cooking the stats—without evidence, mind you.

But let's think about what really matters now that Johnson has been put out to pasture. That is: Why didn't Melton's campaign of fear pull more than 28,000 votes if Jacksonians—not Madisonians, or Rankinians, or Tupelettes, but Jacksonians—are so damned scared every time we walk out of our urban dwellings? Could it be because fear just doesn't sell like certain folks want it to? Could it be that fear—and its kissing cousin, the Southern race strategy—is falling out of favor as a wedge issue in a state where it's ruled for so long?

Fear shouldn't sell. Nothing good ever came of fear. Think about it. FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Fear is paralyzing. Fear gives you stomach aches. Fear makes you stay inside and leaves you antisocial, prejudiced and uninvolved in your community. Fear makes you mean and stupid, or at least come across that way. Fear limits the number of people who will like you. Fear makes you a square.

Most importantly, fear contributes to crime—not the other way around. When we're blinded by our fears of other people, we tend not to support things that help them, that prevent them from becoming the monster in our midst—the prevention that lies at the heart of community policing. Instead, we want them out of sight, out of mind, locked up in private prisons and local jails, even if we can't afford to pay for the cells. Fear makes us irrational.

I'm rather proud of Jacksonians this week. I wish more would have turned out to vote for Johnson, but his message didn't get through the fog of fear. However, so few of them turned out to vote for fear that I see glimmers of hope in that. But we must see that rejection for what it is—a strong message that residents and community leaders and the media and the next mayor need to start playing more than one note. We deserve better. Jacksonians throughout the city know how wrong The Clarion-Ledger is when it mandates that "crime is the No. 1 issue." Crime is a symptom of a whole lot of issues that were roundly ignored in the campaign rhetoric the mass media decided was worth reporting.

Some 79 percent of Jacksonians—only 21 percent of voting-age folks here selected the fear message, and some of those surely voted for the recording studio, the new houses or to be on a Chamber board—have something on their mind other than fear of crime. They are focused on rebuilding their neighborhoods, keeping their teaching credentials under No Child Left Behind, finding a decent-paying job, affording a home, having equal opportunities, dealing with health problems, overcoming discrimination, selling their art, having their children come on home to live in a vibrant city. They are not obsessed with crime; they are obsessed with their own lives, and what is holding them back.

Problems are solved and communities built with courage, not fear. Courage is where hope is rooted; hope is not found in 21 percent of the city voting out of fear. The city's future lies in the courage of everyday people to overcome fear, to clean up their front yards and their blocks, to challenge false assertions, to lower crime by supporting economic development, to be smarter than the fearmongers, to bolster local business and not scare off their customers with overblown rhetoric.

Starting right now, both remaining candidates for mayor need to pay 100 percent of Jacksonians enough respect to start talking, in specific, about the multitude of problems we face. They need to stop tearing down the city in order to get elected, and start appealing to our better instincts, not our worst. The other 79 percent of us deserve to be heard, too.

Previous Comments

ID

69948

Comment

You cast doubts on the motivation of Melton voters but fail to challenge the 30,000 plus in Jackson VAP who haven't bothered to register, nor those 50,000 plus registered who didn't show up to vote May 3rd. You may represent some portion of the 12.4 percent (16,271 voters) who wished to see Mayor Johnson returned for a third term but that is it. You don't necessarily represent any, or all, of the 87,000 some odd in VAP who chose not to participate nor have any unique insights into their agenda. You fail to mention that the May 3rd primary turnout exceeded the general election turnout of 2001 by 9%. Or that Mayor Johnson was selected in the general that year by 24,928 voters which is over 3000 less than the number who touched the screen for Melton in the primary. You don't note that Mayor Johnson polled over 8600 less voters than the number who voted in 2001 to give him another shot. In other words he lost 34.7% of his 2001 voters and you'll be hard pressed to assert, in fact you can't, that those were white NE Jackson male Republicans who left the Mayor's side in his hour of voting need. You don't bring up that Mayor Johnson lost 1278 Democrats in the May 3rd primary from the 17,549 Democrats who chose him in the 2001 Democratic primary over Senator Harden. If hope will not be found in 21 percent of the city supposedly voting out of fear, which is merely your subjective opinion, hope also didn't come close to prevailing over the four years after an even smaller percentage of VAP, or registered voters, put Mayor Johnson into office a second time in 2001. It is obvious you disagree with Melton's positions, and you can minimize the voting results to suit your op-ed purposes, but if any candidate in the last four or five elections (16 to 20 years) for Jackson Mayor has received a mandate, it was Frank Melton on May 3rd, 2005. Let's see who actually talks the city down between now and 2009.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-05-11T11:43:55-06:00

ID

69949

Comment

Opinion is always subjective, PBR, whether yours or mine. Thanks for stating the obvious, though. ;-) However, I do agree with you that the people who aren't registered need to be targeted and given a reason to register and vote. Perhaps if the media and more candidates started addressing a wider range of issues, rather than pushing the fear button, then they might get interested in voting. It is a community responsibility to do as much as possible to get as many people as possible involved in the political process, so that we don't end up with a mayor elected by only 21 percent of voting-age Jacksonians. My column wasn't about the last election of Johnson, and I don't dispute what you're saying about it. But that in no way negates the point I'm making about THIS election. As for disagreeing with Melton's positions, honestly I haven't heard or read many to agree or disagree with. I think he's an unknown factor as far as how he will be as a mayoróhe may well be a very good one. I pray so. But I haven't seen anything to convince me that he will be. He and Johnson both ran bad campaigns, from where I sit. No, nothing you say will convince me that 21 percent of voting-age people gave Mr. Melton a "mandate." That defies my common sense. It's not either-or: I'm not arguing that Johnson had some mandate when he was elected, either. And, by the way, "the city" is not synonymous with who the mayor is, and his performance. One problem I had with Mr. Melton and Mr. Whitlow's campaign is that they both have seized on fears and talked down *the city* itself, thus seizing on hysteria, rather than criticizing the incumbent on his merits. There is a difference. Our purpose as a media outlet is to judge people on their merits and have the good sense to separate that from whether the city is a "cesspool" or one of the other disgusting labels people have given it. I will never "talk down" the city to score some sort of political point. However, we will continue to cover city government in as substantive manner as our resources and stamina will allow. And, ah, nice to see the word "VAP" back again. If you use plain language, instead of the lingo of a political operative, more of those potential voters might understand what you're talking about, PBR. Just a tip.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-11T11:56:43-06:00

ID

69950

Comment

Donna writes: Perhaps if the media and more candidates started addressing a wider range of issues, rather than pushing the fear button, then they might get interested in voting. ---- I agree on the wider range of issues that can be explored by all media ... but what ever happened to one's personal responsibility for utilizing the privilege to vote. Seems to me the responsibility truly lies with the individual - whether issues or emotions are used to persuade them to vote - the responsibility to vote lies with the individual. There was much talk on earlier threads about bloc voting when simply the act of voting is truly the issue. If there is a mandate it is to indifference as seen by the number of registered voters who decided to stay home.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2005-05-12T09:38:36-06:00

ID

69951

Comment

Of course, the responsibility lies with the individual. However, it is also society's, and the media's responsibility, to talk about issues that matter to more individuals. We can hold two thoughts at once, and must. Or even more. The truth is: this has been a one-note campaign, and fear of crime is just the biggest concern of all Jacksonians, nor probably not "most." If it was, more would have turned out. The media are wrong on this one, and need to figure it out. We. need. civic. journalism. now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T09:51:06-06:00

ID

69952

Comment

So I have a better understanding, define "media" and does this include JFP? I'm trying to really understand if all of the others are media and they are wrong or if even the JFP might be among the group that is wrong. I'm not trying to be confrontational, so please do not interpret this question that way. I'm trying to understand your definition for all future reference when I read the word media. Thanks.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2005-05-12T09:58:25-06:00

ID

69953

Comment

I am all for a holiday or Saturday voting system to try and encourage more voting. I also think photos of the candidates need to be next to their names; and the absence of party affiliation on the ballot. But, if the campaigns and especially the media did a better job of informing voters then they may find more time to vote. This is evident in the fact that the Presidential race will pull more votes then a mayoral race in most locations. This is due to increased coverage of each race, and its importance. Yet, local issues will directly affect you more then national ones will. Zoning, taxes and laws mainly executed on the local level affect you more directly; therefore it would seem more people would want to participate in electing their local leaders then national ones. But, it is the lamestream media that perpetuates this notion that local elections should take a backseat to national coverage. And, what drives voters to the polls is lamestream media - unfortunately! I agree the voter needs to take their own responsibility and vote; but, our system and media coverage doesn't encourage that mindset.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T10:03:05-06:00

ID

69954

Comment

JPF, loosen up a bit; we're not submitting formal definitions here for anything. Obviously, the JFP is part of the media and must be held accountable for getting the facts right and doing civic journalism that works for the community, not against it. However, on this particular point and obviously from the context, I am talking about "lamestream" media, who are whipping up sensationalism, as they have with chief after chief over the last several years. I've been reading the archives to bring my "institutional knowledge" up to date, so to speak. And it's quite enlightening on many levels.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T10:03:44-06:00

ID

69955

Comment

Tortoise, you're right. But what both the campaigns and the mass media do is point fingers to each other: They won't tell us! They won't ask! Now, both of these points can be true -- Melton just refused another Q&A interview with us, for instance -- however, that doesn't mean that the media shouldn't do the story anyway and ask the hard questions. Candidates have plenty of writings and speeches to draw from usually (of course, you have to show up to know about them, or have someone taping for you). But what the mass media too often do, in their quest to appear "objective," is to not do a story if one side won't talk. That's just poor journalism. The truth is, if the media -- or or most of them -- would pledge to do civic journalism, the candidates would have no choice but to address the issues, rather than trying to play us against each other, or send operatives out to tell lies about media ownership, or discredit the messinger. Point: all sides are responsible for stepping up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T10:08:46-06:00

ID

69956

Comment

tortoise: "I am all for a holiday or Saturday voting system to try and encourage more voting. I also think photos of the candidates need to be next to their names; and the absence of party affiliation on the ballot. Exactly how will candidate pictures and lack of party affiliation increase voter turnout? And how will you get the former past VRA pre-clearance? No party affiliation on local ballots will probably be beneficial from a governing standpoint, but I don't see the connections to turnout.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T11:53:01-06:00

ID

69957

Comment

The theory on pictures developed in countries with high illiteracy rates, thus pictures of the candidates allowed those who can't read a chance to vote. It is extremely intimidating to try on get along with out being able to read or write here in our country, so anything that will allow more people to feel more comfortable with the process is good. The lack of party affilation was just an idea I've thrown out there. But, my guess is that your name, GDI, is a good arguement for no parties at all!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T13:34:54-06:00

ID

69958

Comment

But what both the campaigns and the mass media do is point fingers to each other: They won't tell us! They won't ask! That is so true. Good way to sum it up. Everyone should want more accountability from their leaders be it in media, public office or private business.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T13:44:59-06:00

ID

69959

Comment

pictures of the candidates allowed those who can't read a chance to vote. So pictures of the candidates next to their names are in essence serving as a proxy for knowing anything about the candidatesí stands or policy preferences (since those who can't read would have to rely on word of mouth and connect with a face rather than a name). Isn't that what party affiliation listings by a candidate's name give? If you don't know anything about a candidate or his/her policies, you can take a cue from the party affiliation and be reasonably assured that the party's policies are also the candidate's policies (I know that may not always be the case). The difference being, with party ID of candidates, you actually get a sense of policy. With candidate pictures, you only get a sense of race and gender. I don't think that would be healthy for elections or viable under VRA'65. I am not a fan of political parties and have a history of supporting and working for GOPers, democRats, and independents, having an 'R' or 'D' or etc. by a name is better than having voters with absolutely no clue looking at a group of pictures and voting solely on what they see.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T13:51:11-06:00

ID

69960

Comment

Since y'all are talking about elections, I thought this would be a safe place to ask, "When are the debates scheduled between Whitlow and Melton?"

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-12T14:06:12-06:00

ID

69961

Comment

We're trying to figure it out. But my impressions is that Melton doesn't plan to debate Whitlow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T14:06:55-06:00

ID

69962

Comment

WTF? How the hell can Melton get away without a real debate about real issues? Is no one else shocked by this? Same for Whitlow! What is wrong with this picture?

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-12T14:10:28-06:00

ID

69963

Comment

Melton learned he could get votes and perhaps even get more votes by not debating Johnson, why shouldn't that work with Whitlow? Or, alternately, Whitlow is so far behind and such an underdog, why bother debating him? Thereís little to gain with a good debate and a lot to lose if it went wrong.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T14:12:21-06:00

ID

69964

Comment

Whitlow is calling for debate apparently. Read his newsletter. Face it: Mr. Melton seems to not want to speak in public in a dialogue he cannot control. It's been this way for weeks now. Perhaps he's concerned someone will ask for his crime plan.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T14:12:53-06:00

ID

69965

Comment

Melton learned he could get votes and perhaps even get more votes by not debating Johnson, why shouldn't that work with Whitlow? It's intriguing. Truth is, the turnout will likely be lower in June. Many Johnson supporters may well vote for Whitlow (it's not like Melton has shown himself to be more progressive or more Democratic, and he talks about more than crime. And people know Whitlow, too, from TV.). And many Melton supporters may take his victory for granted and just stay home. If I was Melton, I'd be a little less confident and campaign a little, and perhaps even address voters, maybe do an interview or two, show up for a debate. Just sayin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T14:15:56-06:00

ID

69966

Comment

If I was Melton, I'd be a little less confident Don't you mean arrogant?

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T14:17:31-06:00

ID

69967

Comment

So pictures of the candidates next to their names are in essence serving as a proxy for knowing anything about the candidatesí stands or policy preferences (since those who can't read would have to rely on word of mouth and connect with a face rather than a name). GDI, how many people do you think "read" about Kerry or Bush, or Johnson and Melton? Very few. Just as very few read books. We are the minority on these blogs when it comes to political discourse. A majority of voters get their information from TV, radio and the candidate before they turn to the newspaper much less an alt. paper blog. Lordy! Literacy doesn't measure intelligence! Less you forget the conversation began as voter turnout - numbers - and how to get them up. Now if you think pictures won't help, fine; but don't turn this into a proxy for how much knowledge a voter must have in order to vote. Generally you have a fair outlook which makes me wonder why you seem so quick to judge my viewpoints, which are actually based on ballots used in countries with extremely high voter turn out! And, many of these countries are much less developed then the good old USofA. I do see your point on parties and what their affiliation can mean to a voter - good point. However, you are way wrong on the picture debate. Anything that breaks down the barriers of voting should be explored and used.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T15:13:16-06:00

ID

69968

Comment

Not my intent to pass judgment on needed intelligence for voting. Not at all. Elitist ideas of literacy tests are abhorrent on sooo many levels. No hat I was saying is that the ëRí or ëDí or whatever accomplished much or more of the same thing but doesnít carry the potential baggage of race and gender bias that would inevitably a concern in this country (especially the South ñok everyone jump on that presumptuous statement). My concern is based on the potential for candidate pictures in erect barriers rather than break them down. And that same concern would be at issue for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T15:20:25-06:00

ID

69969

Comment

I can understand those worries. I don't have to agree; but, I see your point. A whole lot needs to change about how we vote. VRA of 65 or not!And, machines are not the answer either; but, I would really digress then.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T15:36:22-06:00

ID

69970

Comment

A whole lot needs to change about how we vote. We agree there, problem is with the details as usual.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-12T15:42:02-06:00

ID

69971

Comment

Aw, who needs details? They just get in the way. LOL! Good dialog - thanks!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T15:47:45-06:00

ID

69972

Comment

Melton doesn't want to debate Whitlow for the same reason Schwarzenegger didn't want to debate Davis: Because he doesn't have to. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-12T17:42:01-06:00

ID

69973

Comment

I think that is the obvious reason, politically, but I don't think we have to think that's a good thing, as a citizenry, especially from a candidate who has told us so little about what he plans to do as mayor. Funny thing is, we're not necessarily talking about debates here. How about a public forum like the one at the Medical Mall? It feels to me that a confident, "shoo-in" candidate should be out in front of as many people as possible, especially being that the turnout for the primary was so abysmal. But I'm an idealist, I guess, when it comes to politics. I want the candidates to talk about issues. Old-fashioned, I know. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T17:50:22-06:00

ID

69974

Comment

Also, it seems to me that the intimacy of a mayor job would require candidates to be in the public as much as possible. I know Melton is riding the fear factor, but I would think he'd want his candidacy based on something else, so that if crime doesn't immediately fall (he gave it 60 days, right?), he could fall back on other things. I kind of suspect rebuiding the inner city is going to take longer than that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T17:52:10-06:00

ID

69975

Comment

Actually, one morning talk shot host said that he predicts that crime will rise in the first year because JPD will be reporting all the crimes!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-12T18:26:10-06:00

ID

69976

Comment

"They will tell you that, ìSee, people are scared to death in Jackson. Thatís why they voted for Frank Melton.î Bull cookies." Donna, how do bull cookies taste? :-P

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2005-05-12T21:01:05-06:00

ID

69977

Comment

Haven't tried 'em. But I've smelled a few. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-12T21:06:33-06:00

ID

69978

Comment

"Actually, one morning talk shot host said that he predicts that crime will rise in the first year because JPD will be reporting all the crimes!" -tortoise It will rise... The stats and history suggest it. I DARE you to ask him. Double dog! It will rise because we are going through ANOTHER police chief unable to implement a solid plan because the citizens ultimately do not care (show me otherwise because that's based on the stats we all love to hate and hate to love). It will rise because the MAJORITY does not care. Yep! That's right! What's wrong with all of you -- fools? Whining.... Crying... Apathetic, fear-stricken fools! It will rise because we will all be in turmoil as the city awakens like the state's slow, warming, frigid slumber to the American "Family" Association, Haley Barbour and BushCo grilling us all with their zealous weiners and campfire melodies... It will rise. Pardon the prohpecy. I'm just reporting the facts... Ma'am. <> Truthwatch: Does either mayoral candidate actually care what you or I think without a taxable contribution and/or a free Ravioli?

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-12T23:39:57-06:00

ID

69979

Comment

"I DARE you to ask him. Double dog! You couldn't pay me to call that show. I am not going to waste my time providing content to his show when statements like I posted are thrown about like the truth.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-13T07:31:36-06:00

ID

69980

Comment

Tortoise, don't get so bent out of shape over it. The statement was a prediction, based on a theory (i.e., that crime stats have been underreported, either by accident or purpose). A prediction by definition can't be thrown around as fact. But if the theory behind the prediction is true, then there is no logical falacy in the statement. Why don't we hold our horses before discounting the theory. Enough anecdotal stories exist to suggest that the theory deserves investigation. Only then can we know if the stories were simply abberations or a part of a larger problem.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T07:40:07-06:00

ID

69981

Comment

Perhaps I should clarify further. The theory is based on the idea that 1) crime stats are currently not being reported accurately, 2) they should be, and 3) when they are, crime stats would increase.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T07:41:34-06:00

ID

69982

Comment

based on a theory (i.e., that crime stats have been underreported, either by accident or purpose). A prediction by definition can't be thrown around as fact. Oh, but how they irresponsibly throw around as "fact" that the crime stats are systematically and purposefully cooked. One of the hosts of the show I assume you mean keeps asking me to listen to itó"We're not what you think!"óso I turned it on this a.m. One of the first things I heard was one of the hosts droning on about too many hand-outs and women going to the Delta to get their hair done with the money, or some such ignorant stereotype drivel. Then, a smart and reasoned black man, "John," tried to call in and challenge them on how some of their statements "sound" racist, which of course they do. The saddest part is that they don't even seem to get how they sound. The show is filled with logical fallacies and "facts" leading to the inevitable conclusion that black people have to be dealt with roughly, except for the handful who do the right thing and agree with them. I would rather listen to Richard Barrett go on and on; at least he's honest about his own prejudices. I'm sorry. I just couldn't believe the trash I heard this a.m.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T09:39:45-06:00

ID

69983

Comment

This show reminds me so much of the racist crap I grew up around in Neshoba County, the talk about "welfare mothers" and "drunk Choctaws" and how dangerous black people are. Look, gentlemen, many (most?) Mississippians have moved on. Y'all need to stop living in a past that this is not a damn thing to be proud of. You are appealing to the worst in Mississippians, not the best. You proved that to me this morning.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T09:42:12-06:00

ID

69984

Comment

Were they playing 'Libiamo ne'lieti calici' (the "Drinking Song" from La Traviata) in the background? They least they could do is follow the rules of the game...

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-13T10:03:48-06:00

ID

69985

Comment

Wow. Someone in the room is miffed. I simply made a remark about a statement on the show, and then this critique - about an entirely different topic - comes from left field.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T10:04:13-06:00

ID

69986

Comment

John was a very smart and reasoned guy. That's why they all had a great discussion.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T10:07:21-06:00

ID

69987

Comment

My critique wasn't in response to you, Mallen. It was response to what was said this a.m. on that radio show. You just posted in between. ;-) Although it was relevantóbeing that you mentioned that unsubstantiated rallying cry about cooked stats that they then use to support their Fear of Black Folks ugliness. Yes, you're right: I'm miffed. Our state deserves than this. We have come so far, and we can't let people living in the past keep us there with them. We've got to speak up about this kind of ugliness every time we hear it, and certainly not enable it. We'll never get off the bottom of the barrell if we don't challenged half-baked assertions filled with logical fallacies and unsubstantiated rhetoric that steretypes black people. That's no different from 40 years ago, except that then the people saying didn't get all offended if you said they were being "racist." If it quacks like a damn duck ... call it out.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T10:07:56-06:00

ID

69988

Comment

Do you call it great, when they wouldn't listen to anything he said except the part that they thought they agreed on? Puh-leaze.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T10:08:51-06:00

ID

69989

Comment

"to support their Fear of Black Folks ugliness." You're way out of line. You're putting statements their mouths (not to mention thoughts into their heads) - statements and thoughts you want them to make and have - and then you are using the statements as a club to beat the hell of them.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T10:13:33-06:00

ID

69990

Comment

No, THEY were way out of line. They deserve every thing I'm saying and momre for what I heard this a.m. I turned it on to listen with an open mind. I'll get the tape and post a transcript. Just because they don't say the n-word every other sentence like white folks here used to do doesn't mean they are not promoting race stereotypes. They are, and it's really sad and dark. We deserve better. Perhaps they need to start listening to reasonable people like John who was trying to explain to them why they sound "racist," even though he was not calling them "racist." They just yelled him down, ironically spouting more stereotypes. It's as if they don't even know what they're saying. Is that because people are afraid to challenge them? Is that how "good" people end up looking for votes in front of the Council of Conservative Citizens? I am not calling them "racist," either. I don't believe at least one of them is. But much of this city thinks that they are -- don't you know what many, if not most, educated people say about that show, except for its diehard listeners??? But when you spread stereotypes about black people, call out black crimes and not white ones, talk about women using their welfare to get their hair done in the Delta, say that certain communities do not do certain things like "others" do (said just this a.m.), allow callers to talk about lining up "thugs" and shooting them, talk about re-erecting gallows on Capitol Street and letting the "thugs" flap in the wind, say the name "Fat" over and over again so people know who you mean ... you get the picture. This code ain't even subtle. This is ugly, wacky stuff, and it is irresponsible of us NOT to call it out. I grew up around people who wouldn't call out racist innuendo (and direct taunts), and I'm not going to spend my adult life making apologies for the crap that holds this state back. And this junk does. I realize that means the worse of the two of them will tell me to take my "liberal butt" and leave, as he warned people the other day who didn't like his flapping/gallows statement, but you know what? This is my state, too. I'm not leaving. And it's been held back by such crap for too long. I'm speaking up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T10:24:55-06:00

ID

69991

Comment

"Enough anecdotal stories exist to suggest that the theory deserves investigation." Another way of saying this is: "Enough lies about JPD cooking stats suggest that it is true" All we are asking is quit hinting, quit facilitating, and quit perpetuating this myth without some facts and investigation. A couple of callers making statements it happened to them doesn't cut it! If it is true then let's not wait around. Have Larry get those anonymous JPD officers on the show to say they were told to not report crimes by their commander (stated as fact by Larry and defended just as much). We still have internal investigations at JPD! Why wait to uncover it under a new chief when they will have enough to deal with? You may be able to say Larry was just making a prediction based on a theory; but, don't insult us by trying to make us think that it has not been reported as fact at various times in the news - from your dad's show to the C-L, and the TV news without any follow-up or investigation. Call the FBI, call someone; but don't cry wolf without proof. Trust me, you would have the backing of every Jacksonian if it is true. We all want an honest and effective police force!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-13T10:35:06-06:00

ID

69992

Comment

"Enough anecdotal stories exist to suggest that the theory deserves investigation." Then, investigate it, prove it and then present it as fact. All anecdotal evidence should do it point one down an investigative path -- and there are plenty of tales with lots of anecdotal evidence floating around this town. I can only imagine the response from the peanut galleries if a lot of them were presented as fact in the same way. Of course, I don't expect talk radio to give a damn about fact, but The Clarion-Ledger should know better. And presenting the "anecdotal evidence" as balancing quotes to FBI statistics is unbelievable to me. And it gives fuel to the peanut gallery. Otherwise, everything tortoise said. Sure, I believe it can be true -- it was during the 1990s under some other chiefs, you will recall -- but there has been a real effort to fix this problem, and I refuse to believe that people are doing such things without real evidence that checks out. Cough it up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T10:41:19-06:00

ID

69993

Comment

Tortiose, on the whole we agree. However, when you know people who were the victims of violent crimes - say, the victim of a drive by shooting - and the crime is written up as "malicious mischief," I'm not sure what to call it other than a "fact." Sure, it's only one, but it leaves you thinking that where there is smoke, there's fire. Investigation: there probably should be one. But as always with government, give it time. Perhaps there will be one; maybe not; I just don't know. Until then, I wouldn't spend too much energy getting mad at people for the anecdotal stories that do exist - they're outrageous. If you were a victim, you'd be mad too. They should be mad; you should be mad for them, instead of screaming from the ivory tower chat board about these people complaining. There is no straight face explanation for what happened in many of these anecdotal stories. I wish you could hear some stories from my friend who works at Hawkins Field. It would be funny if the stories weren't true. It sounds like a third world country during times of a revolution. According to many business owners, the JPD would concur if they came to the crime scene when crimes were reported. People are ticked. And they are not cooking up the stories to feed some stereotype. Many, if not most, of the complaints heard are from blacks. For many and in many of the neighborhoods, many black citizens don't feel protected. They thing crimes are being properly reported. In other words, for those blacks who feel they are not being protected by the police, or are just being flat out neglected, the people you are mad at are supporting these citizens' causes and interests. Donna, I know you don't like the radio show. I know you never will. I wouldn't expect anyone with even a slight liberal bent to like it. But your readings of their intentions/thoughts are paranoid. You've made so many assumptions that the general attack of their motivations isn't worthy of a reply.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-13T12:07:24-06:00

ID

69994

Comment

Mallen wrote: Tortiose, on the whole we agree. However, when you know people who were the victims of violent crimes - say, the victim of a drive by shooting - and the crime is written up as "malicious mischief," I'm not sure what to call it other than a "fact." Sure, it's only one, but it leaves you thinking that where there is smoke, there's fire. OK, let's see a long report with all those cases documented, MAllen. That's what tortoise is challening you, and yours, to do here. Prove it, and stop flinging unsubstantiated innuendo. Neither tortoise or I are dumb enough to say it can't be true, but in America you're innocent until proven guilty. Except maybe on talk radio. They should be mad; you should be mad for them, instead of screaming from the ivory tower chat board about these people complaining. I am mad for victims. That's why I try to focus on actions that will keep crime from happening, instead of using crime as a tool for politics and stereotyping. People are ticked. And they are not cooking up the stories to feed some stereotype. Many, if not most, of the complaints heard are from blacks. I believe that. Black neighborhoods seldom get the same level of service as rich, white ones. Now please go bring us some documentation. Enough anecdotes and accusations with proof. Donna, I know you don't like the radio show. I know you never will. I wouldn't expect anyone with even a slight liberal bent to like it. Mallen, don't insult me like that. I like intelligent "conservative" conversation, and to consider ideas all along the spectrum, and I have heard one of the hosts lead shows like that. What I don't like is racist coding and stereotyping. That's what I heard this morning, loud and clear. But your readings of their intentions/thoughts are paranoid. That's cheap, Mallen. You can't think of anything to counter what I really heard, so you call me "paranoid." Now, that's a new strategy. You've made so many assumptions that the general attack of their motivations isn't worthy of a reply. Oh, come on, why not try explaining to us how just one of those things I heard isn't race-baiting. Or, do you prefer spending paragraphs telling us how anecdotal evidence is so convincing that you don't actually need to see or produce actual evidence. But then it is beyond, or above, your capabilities to respond to actual examples of race-baiting. This is weak excuse-making, Mallen. They said what they said, and it needs to be discussed publicly. You can't do it on the show, because they yell down anyone who doesn't agree with them, or call them "paranoid" or -- shudder!!!!! -- "liberal." Nope. You're going to have to work harder here if you want to be convincing on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T13:09:30-06:00

ID

69995

Comment

Yeah, me too! LOL! Really, MAllen, I would just like to see a more in depth investigation into the possible irregularities that you are speaking of. Yet, I am not going to say there may be a fire based on one claim; but if true, we need to know. And, I surely don't think we should wait for the gov't to look into it. We have certain media outlets that could help; but, only seem more interested in inserting the claim of cooking stats into our subconscious instead of actually doing an investigative story into it. We canít wait for the JFP to do all the heavy lifting for the press here in town. I agree with Ladd that talk radio, especially with unknown callers, has more leeway to banter about theories; but, the real media outlets have a responsibility to investigate any claims that are of that magnitude. I'm sorry you thought I was out of line (paranoid) referencing the show. I've heard a few good things on there, and Councilman Allen certainly projects himself and the city much better then Larry. But, I still donít have to feel a need to call in and discuss issues when a majority of what is said is so unsettling. I just feel like it hurts us and the city to continue to project this myth if it is only a couple of cases or ìaccidentsî as has been mentioned on the morning show.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-13T13:46:45-06:00

ID

69996

Comment

Good comments, tortoise. Ben is certainly no Larryóbut they both should take the personal responsibility of challenging the more ridiculous allegations made there, especially the racist ones, even of each otheróand not just of people they perceive as liberals. That called ("John") this morning was so reasonable, and not attacking them, and they wouldn't listen at all to his criticisms. They boiled them into something goofy that did not represent what he was saying and then cut him off. None of us are above a bit of self-regulation. I do it to myself. In fact, I deleted something I posted here last week without comment about Melton because Ben took it in a different way from what it meant (I was actually trying to explode one particular rumor about him), and challenged me on it. I took it down and then re-posted the same link with more explanation so that people would understand what I was doing. (Of course, I learned I should have left it and just explained because the blogosphere liars elsewhere tried to turn the whole thing into something it wasn't. But we got it cleared up.) The point, though, is that ALL media should be responsible. They can have a policy of challenging callers who are blatantly racist or saying people should be lined up and shot, or just hitting that guetner (sp?) and cutting their a$$es off. The First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech, and it doesn't apply to actions of the media (although it protects us in many ways). And if they don't take personal responsibility ó especially with an elected official on there, talking and enabling ó they need to be called out on it. It reminds me of our blog calling out Wyatt on that slavery-apology column he gave an award for. We didn't "censor" him, but we sure told him how backward it was. That's how the public should respond to hate and racism. This sh*t does not help Mississippi.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-13T13:55:01-06:00

ID

69997

Comment

The 'Talk Show' you all are speaking of is, in my opinion, detrimental to the future development of Jackson. For someone just riding through, it gives the tired old stereotypes of Southerners in general; for those of us driving to work, it has the same 10 malcontents calling-in pontificating; and for many of us, it is something we no longer listen to. I picture Larry riding the Interstates at a solid 60 mph, with his gun under the seat, looking for things to complain about in Jackson, and waxing nostalgic about the good old days with the doors unlocked. God help him if he had to drive or live in a big City.

Author

ChrisCavanaugh

Date

2005-05-14T15:34:19-06:00

ID

69998

Comment

All media should be responsible, and all horseshit should smell like daffodils. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-14T15:37:34-06:00

ID

69999

Comment

Personally, I'm more concerned about the media being responsible than the smell of horseshit. It doesn't permeate my life like bad media coverage does. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-14T15:38:59-06:00

ID

70000

Comment

(Okay--the blog comments software censors Dick van Dyke, but the one time I count on it to censor profanity... Oh, well. :P)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-14T15:38:59-06:00

ID

70001

Comment

I know, our censor is a big whacked. That's OK, though. We can handle it. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-14T15:40:02-06:00

ID

70002

Comment

(Hey, it didn't censor Dick van Dyke! This is COOL! I'm Tom Head, RAW and UNCENSORED! Or something.) As far as bad media is concerned: Basically agreed. I wish I could remember where I put that URL to a piece the Authors Guild did on Gannett, the Boston Globe in particular, and how it treats its writers. The thing I expect from media is not consistent good coverage; it's consistent weak coverage with occasional moments of moral courage. The Boston Globe did break the priest molestation scandal; if it wasn't for that paper, Cardinal Law would still be in Boston and most of us never would have even heard about the whole mess. And the Clarion-Ledger, despite forgetting all about the friggin' JSU massacre, has done a lot of good things in terms of bringing public attention to bear on the likes of Beckwith and Killen. (I'll give the C-L the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just saving the story for Sunday, but still...) The thing to remember about these papers is that there really are some great people working for them. We all know where fertilizer comes from, but dump it on a plot of land and darned if a few flowers don't crop up. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-14T15:45:13-06:00

ID

70003

Comment

I hear you, Chris. And Ben's presence gives it more credence than it would get otherwise. That's a real disappointment to me. I think he reallys lowers by doing that show, and limits the number of people who would support him otherwise. He could be a leader for the New Mississippi instead of the Old, but he chooses the old by doing that show. Sad. I was thinking today about Larry's admonition the other day to anyone who disagreed with his suggestion about erecting gallows on Capitol Street that their "liberal butts" could just leave. That hit a nerve with me. That has long been the mantra of backward ignoramuses to young, dynamic, thoughtful Mississippians: get with the pro-gramm or get your butt outta here. I left the day after I graduated from Mississippi STate because people like that convinced me there wasn't a place for me in my home state. I came back 18 years ago later because I had gained enough confidence and knowledge to realize that it wasn't up to retrograde a$$wipes whether I lived in my home state and believed any way I wanted. This is a free country, and even Mississippians are free to be smart and progressive in America, and right here in Mississippi. And whole boatloads of people agree with me, and their "liberal butts" aren't going anywhere, either. This is our home, too, and there are room for a variety of viewpoints, not just the ones the old Citizens Council spread around about crime and fear and stereotypes about groups of people Mr. Nesbit can kiss our collective Mississippi-born butts. Ah. That felt good. 8-P

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-14T15:50:16-06:00

ID

70004

Comment

Yes, there are good people at the Ledger, and they should demand that the paper do a better job. Otherwise, I start to lose respect even for the good ones. It's just not good enough for them to tell you at a bar this or that. They need to stand up to the corporate heads and demand time and space to do real journalism. It is the STAFF's responsibility to make that thing better than it is. They can't rest on the laurels of a couple of old civil rights case, as important as those were. There are very real issues in the here and now that they are not dealing with, and need to. And they are embarrassing themselves with their terrible coverage of Jackson politics. I hope they realize it. I do not respect a jouranlist or editor who does not demand to do good journalism. You don't get into journalism to be comfortable, or to comfort the afflicted. I'm reading a great book right now on journalistic ethics and responsibility; I'm have to post some excerpts from it about how we cannot abdicate our responsibility by bowing to the powerful or to profit margins. It's at home, though. But reading it has me cheering, and further bemoaning how bad the Ledger has become. It seems like it's gone downhill even in the four years I've been here. Not that it was great in 2001, but goodness gracious.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-14T15:56:14-06:00

ID

70005

Comment

You don't get into journalism to be comfortable, or to comfort the afflicted. I just noticed that I said that wrong. It should have said, "You don't get into journalist to be comfortable, or to comfort the comfortable. You get into journalist to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable (when they need to be afflicted)." Inevitably, of course, that means the comfortable will try to badmouth you, but that goes with the territory. The way to respond to badmouthing is with better journalism, not worse journalism. You can't lose sight of the point of the Fourth Estateóif so, the people lose. Anyway.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-16T12:23:34-06:00

ID

70006

Comment

... into journaLISM ... I've been the typo queen. Sorry. I need to go for quality over quantity. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-16T12:25:08-06:00

ID

70007

Comment

I thought that sounded a little lewd... :P As far as the Ledger people are concerned: We don't know that they aren't bugging their paper; the question is whether or not they're being heard. Remember the Gannett philosophy (and as a fellow working writer, you know this): Writers are expendable; revenue streams are not. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-16T15:41:57-06:00

ID

70008

Comment

Agreed, Tom. They may well be bugging. But it strikes me that they're not pushing hard enough, or we'd be seeing more substance in the paper, right? I don't completely buy the idea that determined editors and reporters can't push to do better journalism, and see some success. It's first up to them to get out there and dig up the angles and the background, and then present it. But your point is good, of course.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-16T15:58:32-06:00

ID

70009

Comment

I think that sooner or later it probably starts resembling the situation in Albert Camus' The Plague, where the doctor knows everybody has a terminal case, shrugs, and keeps working on the cure anyway because he has to do something. It won't actually work but, well, he's a doctor and that's what he does. Shades of the Bhagavad-Gita: "Therefore, o kshatriya, stand and fight!" So the good journalists go to work and they do their jobs and keep probing, but it never gets anywhere. Or seldom--we know the Neshoba County thing probably came from a committed journalist who was able to push it through. Every now and then they do something that makes me proud; just not very often. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-16T16:07:48-06:00

ID

70010

Comment

MAllen, I was impressed to hear more reports on the show about possible misrepresentation of crime reports and the lack of response time for victims. These are surely tragedies that need to be corrected. Maybe you guys are on to something? However, why the onus for the JFP, the Planet or whoever to uncover the story? I would think as councilman, Mr. Allen would be in the best spot to blow the lid off of this problem and spearhead the efforts to correct it. However, the radio show may not be the best way? Also, I don't think anyone here has ever said "JPD is mistake free," we are only asking that everyone stop belittling JPD without more facts/investigations because you are doing more harm to the majority of good cops then you are to solving the problem. I really hate to see yíall get so emotional over this. Everybody wants a great police force; just some of us see more productive ways of improving the publicís perception of JPD. It sounds like last nights ìSafe Cityî was a great event that brought together all kinds of citizens who want to see a better crime force throughout the Metro area. What did I read in the JFP from Aven the Caterer with Broadstreet, ìYouíve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch onto the affirmativeÖî

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T11:13:47-06:00

ID

70011

Comment

So they really said the onus is on the JFP to do all the research for the whole media force in Jackson??? I appreciate the compliment that the alternative media are the only ones qualified to actually prove everyone's unproved allegation, that this itty-bitty, teensy-weensy publication is the only one up to the task of actually doing homework and investigation, that we're the only one who realizes the ethics of having facts before stating something as fact, that we're the only segment of the Fourth Estate here that understand that people (and mayor and chiefs) are innocent until proven guilty. Of course, the chief is not mistake-free. Nor is Ben Allen, or Larry Nesbit, or Donna Ladd, or tortoise, or Frank Melton, or The Clarion-Ledger. However, responsible people (and media and elected officials) know that rumor and unsubstantiated statements on talk radio are not fact, and is up to the people who pass on those rumors to investigate them FIRST before stating as fact. It is simply laughable to turn around and try to blame other people for not looking into your own allegations for you. Has Ben Allen called the FBI if he has all this evidence about the chief lying to them? If not, why not? Talking about passing the responsibility buck.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T11:25:31-06:00

ID

70012

Comment

It appeared that they asked for the Alt. newspapers to stop pretending that these things are not happening; and for the Alt's (JFP, etc.) or an investigative journalist (I guess that would be the lamestream media) to call him up, and he will give you the names of the victims. It's a first step if there is any fire to the smoke, and that is good! However, I agree that there is only so much a citizen can do in this case; and, that we need our elected officials to push this further then just through the airwaves - if it is true, and a systematic problem "top down" - not just a few isolated officers. They are doing to the JPD what the press did to Bush and our army in Abu-Grab. And, I am certain that Ben and Larry did not take kindly to how our troops and leaders were portrayed due to the actions of a few soldiers. ;-) Let's just try to keep everything in perspective and try to give the benefit of the doubt to our most important protectors in Jackson while correcting any problems that may arise at times without widespread claims of abuse.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T11:48:28-06:00

ID

70013

Comment

"...or an investigative journalist." That was their words not mine Donna! ;-) With that said. I think every media outlet will jump on this story if it even appears to have some merit. But, right now it is not being pursued by the major outlets at all. At least here, the JFP has opened the book on this topic and put it forth for discussion.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T11:57:29-06:00

ID

70014

Comment

That is such bizarre logic to me. If Ben Allen has the evidence that the city has perpetuated a conspiracy to defraud crime statistics to the FBI, WHOSE responsibility is it to get something done about it?? His whole job as a city councilman is to go on talk radio and challenge someone to call him for the evidence? If he has such evidence, the JFP calls on City Councilman Ben Allen to call the Federal Bureau of Investigative TODAY and report it. Why has he been sitting on it for so long? Is there a city cover-up going on here? Why can't the councilman get something done about such a widespread conspiracy? Surely, he has given this evidence to the state's daily newspaper already?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T11:58:34-06:00

ID

70015

Comment

an investigative journalist (I guess that would be the lamestream media) Umm.. First you gotta find a Jackson investigative reporter in the mainstream... We're doomed.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-17T11:59:52-06:00

ID

70016

Comment

BTW, this alleged fraud is also what SafeCity Watch said at a big press conference at the Masonic Lodge on Lynch Street that they were going to investigate. I don't believe any real evidence of a fraud conspiracy was ever presented. Surely, police departments have done this in the past, including here in Jackson before Chief Moore and recently in New Orleans, and Chief Moore's police deparment COULD have doctored the numbers. That's common sense. However, they are trying to deflect is issue hereówhich is: The Clarion-Ledger and other media, a city councilman, talk-radio hosts, two mayoral candidates and various other folks have been presenting a serious accusation as fact that none of them seem to have done a thing to prove. That would be like going around stating as fact that Jim Bob Schmoe is a murderer, and when challenged for proof, saying, "Well, it's the alternative press' job to find and present the evidence; not ours." Where is the personal and professional responsibility in this? If they have the evidence of a conspiracy to defraud crime statistics, they need to move on it NOW.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T12:07:30-06:00

ID

70017

Comment

Simply chiming in to correct what I believe is a misunderstanding. At no point in the conversation was the onus put on alternatives to investigate. Rather, what sounded (to me, at least) like a challenge was issued. That is, 1) stop saying that these stories, that have been verified, aren't "facts" in support of a theory (they are, although they may not yet be in the comprehensive form that is a) what you would like and b) most preferable to all), and 2)(the real challenge) if you don't believe the stories, call the hosts, either on or off the air. They'll give you the names so that you can verify the stories. A duty, either explicitly or implicitly, was not passed to the alternatives. There was criticism of alternatives, yes, but their wasn't a rallying cry to help prove their theory. If you feel that duty, so be it. But I didn't hear anyone asking alternatives to pick up this story. Also, I believe WLBT did a story on this the other night (Dennis did it). I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's correct.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-17T12:41:05-06:00

ID

70018

Comment

You should go and get a copy of the tape before going off on the conspiracy theory tangent. I listened to the whole hour and tortoise has presented this synopsis in just such a way as it would be bound to offend you. I don't know if tortoise's intent is purposeful but you are missing much of the context and nuance. Listen and then decide for yourself. I never heard you, or your publication, ever mentioned by name.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-05-17T12:43:57-06:00

ID

70019

Comment

I listened to the entire show, too. I think this is what they were responding to - Ladd's post of May 13: "OK, let's see a long report with all those cases documented, MAllen. That's what tortoise is challening you, and yours, to do here. Prove it, and stop flinging unsubstantiated innuendo. Neither tortoise or I are dumb enough to say it can't be true, but in America you're innocent until proven guilty. Except maybe on talk radio."

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T12:51:04-06:00

ID

70020

Comment

Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. It sounded to me that they were responding to exactly what winston points out. The quotes I use are paraphrases; but, I think I captured the essence of what was intended. Was it not asked of the media (alts and others) to take the ball and run ñ to maybe believe that a problem may exist? Obviously my guard is up since I seem to want to defend our police, as is yours and the hosts this morning in your defense of misdoings. I think it is great that we are talking about this through two different outlets. And, I would have to qualify this as taking more action as called upon by the show this morning. I seem to have gotten a response. Who knows we may have G-men crawling around Jackson even without Bush coming to visit? Now onto PBR. I don't think anyone is claiming conspiracy here. The conspiracy seems to be a rash judgment of the whole police department based on the cries of a few. Many hours later I canít quote the show; but were the words - Atl. press, liberals, investigative journalist, look into it, here are names, here is proof ñ used at different times during the show? YES! Did he say JFP, I donít think so; but, who else was he talking about when he referred to the "alt. press?" Certainly wasnít the pull-out version of the WeekEnder!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T13:37:49-06:00

ID

70021

Comment

Folks, the point is, as my boss always says: "People don't just change their minds. They come to new decisions based on new information." Now, for many of us, "rumor and anecdote" are not enough "information" upon which to change our minds. Especially in a case as serious as this one. I also don't buy the "everyone's saying it, so it must be true" argument. It's incredibly easy to manipulate rumor mills. I've worked for people who were so easy to manipulate that way. You tell the 3 or 4 mavens, who you know will repeat what you've said, and suddenly this information is everywhere. When in fact, it all gets traced back to the same source. Easy to do, I've seen it done. I'm not saying that these allegations are either true or false. But, it's just plain odd that Councilman Allen is "challenging" people on a radio program to call him to get these names instead of using his authority as a City Council member to launch an investigation.

Author

kate

Date

2005-05-17T13:40:32-06:00

ID

70022

Comment

Allen was summarizing the complaints from people who called him personally. He offered to give the names of the complainants to the alt. weekly editors if they are disinclined to believe Ben Allen himself. Thus, his point that these are not "unsubstantiated allegations". A few people called in to the show and reported similar experiences. One man called in and said that his business had been burglarized so many times, they no longer called to report it.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T13:49:39-06:00

ID

70023

Comment

I don't blog on the Planet's site, and don't know if the VIP Jackson has a blog, so maybe Ben blogs there too; but, we all know he was a regular here. So, why would he even need to name the JFP when he put his challenge to the "alts." and the other media? That's like saying you know a good Thai place in town. Well there is only one or two in Jackson, so that narrows it down a little!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T13:52:32-06:00

ID

70024

Comment

Given the proclivity of some alt. editors to threaten lawsuits, most people think it's wiser to say "alt. weeklies" than to specify any particular one. Ask the guys at Jacksonsnextmayor.com.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T13:56:58-06:00

ID

70025

Comment

Thank you winston for having a better memory then me! He may have even given the name of the man who said they don't call the police anymore. The examples seem so extreme to me that they don't offer any balance or fairness to those officers who workhard and do a good job which is why I still think it is isolated individuals and not a top-down problem.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T14:02:35-06:00

ID

70026

Comment

Well, I don't see why the individual officers have a motive to downgrade the crimes they are being asked to respond to. I'm just relieved we elected someone (yeah, I know, it's not "officially" over) who has taken the first step of admitting that there's a crime problem. The Melton supporters I know are jubilant.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T14:06:50-06:00

ID

70027

Comment

complaints from people who called him {Ben Allen} personally (winston3) OK, but correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the other half of the allegations that the JPD and, specifically, chief Moore were falsifying crime numbers to the FBI? And weren't those allegations among the ones Allen claims to have verified? So why not report and provide that verification directly to the FBI? So far, and I did not listen to the show, I'm only hearing about verification of complaints regarding overly long response times. Where is verification of false reports filed with the FBI (which is a felony, btw).

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-17T14:07:50-06:00

ID

70028

Comment

Allen was summarizing the complaints of people who were the victims of felonies and the officers were writing them up as malicious mischief. One 21 year old had the back windows of his car shot out (totally unprovoked) while he was driving. Instead of reporting it as shooting into an occupied automobile, the officers tried to write it up as a misdemeanor malicious mishief. I don't remember the other ones Allen recounted. But a man from west Jackson said he caught someone breaking into his house through the window. The complainant was a big man and he was able to restrain the burgler until cops got there. Again, the cops tried to write it up as malicious mischief (for burglary, all you need is an unlawful entering with intent to commit some crime). The complainant had a friend on the force and he was able to prevail upon them to write it up as a burglary.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T14:14:45-06:00

ID

70029

Comment

Then the Councilman should turn all these names and the summaries of events over to the FBI for investigation of individual officers and see if it actually goes higher. Why hasn't this public official done so?

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-17T14:27:22-06:00

ID

70030

Comment

I guess we don't know what he (Ben Allen) has or hasn't done. If the FBI were investigating it, it probably would not be public knowledge. Anyway, it is my understanding that the FBI only cares about terrorism. There was a story on the wires yesterday that the money to investigate health care fraud was being used for anti-terrorism efforts.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T14:30:38-06:00

ID

70031

Comment

Winston that is an excellent account of the guest on the show. Some were even repeats callers from the past or to Kim's show (the big guy you mention and the lady who saw the cars with the kids "who looked out of place.") But, it still comes across as very limited and too much "he said, she said" to know if it is systematic.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T14:40:22-06:00

ID

70032

Comment

The only way that we will know if it is systemic, I guess, is to have an all-out investigation. But I would think many investigations have been launched as a result of evidence that is merely anecdotal. At this point, though, I don't think it matters what has been done in the past. Who wants to waste the money to find out?

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T14:44:48-06:00

ID

70033

Comment

Good, Winston, I'm glad they're responding to that challenge I issued. That's exactly what they should do; I'm glad I got their attention. I will restate the obvious: I haven't said the police can't be doing anything wrong; obviously, they can be. But it is irresponsible for any media outlet to present the accusation of a fraud conspiracy as if that is equal fact to FBI statistics without investigating it. And it is simply disingenuous and irresponsible for them even to try to point fingers back at us here when we are challenging them to produce the evidence and do something about it. What does the friggin' alternative media got to do with them provingg their own allegations? If that's what they're doing, I'm glad. But it is not up to us or anyone else to crawl over to WJNT and ask for the results of their investigationóit is up to them to IMMEDIATELY turn it over to the FBI. The FBI are the ones with the expertise to look at these cases and see if they are real and qualify as a conspiracy on behalf of the Johnson administration. I'm a pretty good reporter, but I don't have the resources to do a full-scale investigation into whether there is a conspiracy by the city of Jackson to defraud the FBI -- which is what they're all alleging. Here's the FBI's info: 100 W Capitol St, Jackson, 39269 - (601) 948-5000 I suggest that Councilman Allen call them today with the evidence. From where I sit, that's the only responsible thing for them to do. And I will be more than happy to report the results of the FBI's investigation, whatever it turns out to be. If there is fraud, it needs to stop. But I am not going to allege it without real evidence. That is not ethical or responsible.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T14:54:13-06:00

ID

70034

Comment

winston, do you think corruption will stop with a new mayor? IF there are corrupt police on the streets there are corrupt police on the streets. No new mayor or chief is going to know a corrupt officer by the look on their face. A simple question -- because I, like Kate, need more information and am willing to ask questions before making a decision -- What if the police that are allegedly filing the malicious mischeif reports just confused newbies? We have released many, many, many new police officers and it's possible they may not be seasoned enough to know the difference. *** I'm in no way kicking the new officers just posing the question. Further, I'm curious... If all these people have such complaints, have the contacted the FBI (as GDI suggests) and/or the Mayor's office and/or the Chief?

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-17T14:54:26-06:00

ID

70035

Comment

Well, if the future police chief has some officers who continue this practice and it continues to go relatively undetected then it will continue to be a problem. So, an investigation is always worth it, and usually reveals more then asked for in the beginning. I will agree that it appears that Jackson is ready for a crime overhaul as indicated in the election results. And I hope either man does a great job! But, at some point we either need to nip this problem of blaming the police in the bud (drink) or stop the rhetoric and move on to a positive approach to making Jackson better both eco-devo. and crime wise!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T14:56:32-06:00

ID

70036

Comment

I should also add that I don't think it's fair to the men and women of the JPD to be painted with a broad brush that they're all cooking reports and such. Let the FBI figure this out and target any officers or commanders that need to be targeted, if it turns out to be true, and stop just wildly pointing fingers at the JPD. I'm not the type of alternative media that believes that you say "f*ck the police" just because they are police officers. I've known too many good police officers in my lives, who put their lives on the line every day, to generalize in such an irresponsible manner. And I don't play the kind of nasty politics that would lead to doing that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T14:58:20-06:00

ID

70037

Comment

I think the thinking is that IF this is happening, it is coming from the same people who brought you the "crime is just a perception" hogwash, i.e., the top down. Johnson's whole campaign, on that issue, was "crime is down." If that is true, then fixing the crime stats should not be a problem with a mayor whose campaign was based on "there's a crime problem and I'm gonna fix it." Ben Allen, this morning, was only defending himself against the accusation of making "unsubstantiated allegations." It was not a challenge to any weekly to investigate it. He only said that anyone (any alt. weekly) who doesn't believe the accounts as given by Ben Allen, can have the names of the complainants and talk to them herself. To make it anything bigger than that would be less than truthful.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:12:02-06:00

ID

70038

Comment

Winston, go check out the Truthwatch on the "crime is just a perception" hogwash. No one ever said crime was just a perception. It's just one of those things that "everyone knows" until you actually look at the facts, the quotes, and the string of events. As for me, I still say they are unsubstantiated allegations, because talking to a few people is not an investigation. As I've pointed out before, by my anecdotal evidence, Mississippi is overwhelmingly filled with progressive, liberal minded folks who did NOT vote for Bush or Barbour. Clearly, my anecdotes, multitudinous as they are, do not reflect the whole story. Anecdotes don't impress me. Give me new and substantiated information, and I may change my mind.

Author

kate

Date

2005-05-17T15:19:26-06:00

ID

70039

Comment

OK, Kate, start the attack. Ben Allen was accused of making "unsubstantiated allegations." If you still choose to call them unsubstantiated, let's get this clear, you are calling the complainants liers, not Ben Allen. If he "errs" on the side of believing his constituents, I can't blame him. And you are not going to persuade me that Moore did not say the perception thing or that Johnson's campaign (on crime) was that crime is down. Don't even try.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:24:22-06:00

ID

70040

Comment

But, it's just plain odd that Councilman Allen is "challenging" people on a radio program to call him to get these names instead of using his authority as a City Council member to launch an investigation. Agreed, Kate. I don't get it at all. He needs to call the FBI. Now. Should we start a petition to urge Mr. Allen to turn his evidence over to the FBI rather than holding it out as a carrot to the alternative media? He offered to give the names of the complainants to the alt. weekly editors if they are disinclined to believe Ben Allen himself. Bizarre. Why not the FBIóthe people who can get something done about it? Why the obsession with the "alternative media"? It wouldn't be because we're the only ones willing to challenge witch hunts, would it? Or, alternatively, to speak up and say, uh, we're in America here. People are innocent until proven guilty. That's our responsibility to do. Thus, his point that these are not "unsubstantiated allegations". With all due respect, winston, several people alleging that individual police offers did a bad job does not a fraud conspiracy make. I have followed up some of these "leads" in the past, and nearly every one has turned out to be less than the hooplaóand often the person doesn't report their poor treatment at the hands of police to the brass. The point is that it is "unsubstantiated" that the police are intentionally cooking the numbers. This makes about as much sense as the anonymous poster who kept trying to post here that it was "substantiated" that two people in town, neither of whom she personally likes, were clearly "dating" because this anonymous poster had heard one of them say it. This woman (learned her gender later) could not comprehend that it was not "substantiated" enough to be lodged as a public "fact" because she was claiming to have heard it. Not everyone in town understands the yin-yang of accusations and evidence, it seems. It's amazing how much time we spend talking about stuff that seems like basic common sense. It's not like everyone in the blog and talk radio world gets a "say anyone you want about people, and it doesn't matter" card. So, why would he even need to name the JFP when he put his challenge to the "alts." and the other media? I assume they are obsessed with us because we don't follow their rhetoric blindly. We challenge them; therefore, they want to discredit us. Same reason, I presume, that they don't challenge their callers when they cast the JFP, or me personally, in a false light. It serves their agenda, as it is. Given the proclivity of some alt. editors to threaten lawsuits, most people think it's wiser to say "alt. weeklies" than to specify any particular one. Ask the guys at Jacksonsnextmayor.com. Allow me to ask what that veiled comment means, winston. Please elaborate.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:26:32-06:00

ID

70041

Comment

If you hear it, it's substantiated. If someone else hears it, it's not. I got it.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:29:22-06:00

ID

70042

Comment

winston, you're not making much sense here. And you haven't listened (or read) very closely. The whole problem here is not that individual people complain about poor treatment by individual police officers. Customer service is always a problem in police departments. I used to sit next to a police commander in New York City's 9th who would call his own precinct to see how they answered the phone, and change his voice to see how they treated him. What is, thus far, "unsubstantiated" is that this is a conspiracy by the police department to fraudulently cook the crime statistics, meaning that the falling crime numbers are wrongówhich has been alleged repeatedly lately on talk radio, blogs, in The Clarion-Ledger and by mayoral candidates. I don't think it takes an expert in logic to see that a small number of peopleóalthough their complaints are very likely real and legitimateósaying that they're weren't treated right does not a fraud conspiracy make. This is kinda simple when you take time to think about it. My suggestion is that Mr. Allen and Mr. Nesbit and Mr. Lange put aside their obsession with little ole us and do what it is right to help people and the city. They need to urge those people to immediately take their complaints BOTH to the police brass, as well as to the local FBI if they believe that they constitute an effort by this adminstration to commit fraud against the FBI. I cannot imagine why they would withhold evidence of fraud in order to dangle it in front of us and challenge us to do the investigation for them. That part is just weirdo. They need to stop complaining about the JFP and do the right thing themselves. ASAP.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:37:32-06:00

ID

70043

Comment

If you hear it, it's substantiated. If someone else hears it, it's not. I got it. LO-friggin'-L, winston. No, that's not what I said. However, as the editor of this publication, I am responsible for what appears here, so it is my responsibility to ask for substantiation for allegations made here, just as it is Mr. Lange's to police his site. Got it now?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:39:26-06:00

ID

70044

Comment

I don't know who they have or have not talked to. I don't imagine you do either. But IF it's top down, lodging a complaint with the police doesn't make any sense.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:44:55-06:00

ID

70045

Comment

If you hear it, it's substantiated. If someone else hears it, it's not. I got it. You don't have to be convinced of anything, winston; however, the truth is that Moore's "perception" were twisted by the media all out of whack. It was sensationalistic and irresponsible. For instance, in a news report earlier this week, the reporter had this paraphrase: "Moore, who sometimes blamed the media for bringing up the crime issue in Jackson, ..." I challenge you to find a direct quote from Moore in which he said that the media should not "bring up" the crime issue. Please. I wrote the reporter and the managing editor at The Clarion-Ledger to ask for the direct quotes this was based on, and they said to look in their archives. They wouldn't point to a specific quote.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:45:44-06:00

ID

70046

Comment

But IF it's top down, lodging a complaint with the police doesn't make any sense. You're tripping all over your logic here, winston. Has it been proven to be "top down"? Isn't that exactly what we're discussing hereóthe fact that several people complaining about poor police customer service may not be "top down"óuntil proven to be? It sounds a little like you're believing that part without it being proven, and then just assuming that the "brass" aren't interested. That's not helping anything, is it? However, allowing that it may be "top down" is exactly why I suggested taking it to both the police and the FBI, especially the evidence that shows that it's "top down." And if you take it to brass and don't get a helpful response, then you can add that to your complaints to the FBI to help build your case that it's a conspiracy from the "top down." And if there is a whole line-up of people that the WJNT folks have assembled, then put all their complaints into one document and take that to the FBI and let's get this thing proved one way or the other, once and for all. Today. Again: 100 W Capitol St, Jackson, 39269 - (601) 948-5000 See the point?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:50:54-06:00

ID

70047

Comment

I'm not getting into a fight here. I just wanted to accurately report the gist of the radio show this morning which was not a challenge to you or anyone else other than to say that if you don't believe the reporter (Ben Allen) then you can talk to the complainants themselves. He was not asking you to investigate anything. If you don't believe this reporter's (my) account, then call Ben. Or get the tape.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:53:22-06:00

ID

70048

Comment

This also reminds me a little of Wyatt and The Clarion-Ledger editorialists calling for the mayor to come see them more often if he wants better press (or however they phrased their reasoning). If Councilman Allen has assembled a dossier that proves that the city has committed systematic statistics fraud, then he should be running it to every media outlet in town, alternative or not, as well as to the FBI. Why wouldn't he?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T15:55:21-06:00

ID

70049

Comment

I think the argument thus far is this: You say that all the complaints are unsubstantiated and proof of nothing. Other people are saying there are complaints that should be investigated and, if true, we need to find out where this is coming from. So, who is being close minded on the topic? Now you will say, like you ALWAYS do, that I have misrepresented your view. If that's your rebuttal, then what is your view?

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T15:58:01-06:00

ID

70050

Comment

I wrote the reporter and the managing editor at The Clarion-Ledger to ask for the direct quotes this was based on, and they said to look in their archives. They wouldn't point to a specific quote. You seem to have taken on the self-appointed role as the Curtis Sliwa of journalistic integrity here in Jackson. I can only wonder how the coverage of Hampton's talk will turn out. I just don't see how this Ledgedetta of your's assists over the longer run in the picking of their low hanging fruit. The daily isn't a democracy it is a business. They are under no obligation to satisfy outside purists.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-05-17T15:59:32-06:00

ID

70051

Comment

From my own experience, when I reported an officer for trying not to file a report (still no clue as to why), and contacted the security department of my neighborhood and the police, the officer was taken off the beat and now pushes pencils... Still, to this day. And this was under Moore. Moore actually came to our community meeting to discuss whether this was a problem or not and ENCOURAGED every, single, one of us to report violations of this nature. Just my $.02 on the "top down" theory.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-17T16:01:13-06:00

ID

70052

Comment

But Knol, isn't that just anecdotal?

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T16:01:58-06:00

ID

70053

Comment

I never made a claim that JPD WAS OR WASN'T CORRUPT FROM THE TOP DOWN. And, yes, I was providing my own experience and NEVER claimed them to be a factual representation of EVERYONE'S experience. <<>>

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-17T16:04:19-06:00

ID

70054

Comment

Ben shouldn't have to defend himself. He is a member of our city's government. He should be taking these allegations to the proper authorities instead of trying to convince some of us they are true. My two incidences with the police in the last three years for crimes to me or my family has been fine; and we even caught one suspect after a dual city investigation that continued because we too took it as seriously as the police did even though we knew it would result in little to no jail time. And, that is the fault of the Hinds and Rankin Co. court system, not the JPD!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T16:05:21-06:00

ID

70055

Comment

I don't think Ben Allen has claimed that the reports from people who called him are exemplary of EVERYONE's experience. Just something that should be looked into.

Author

winston3

Date

2005-05-17T16:06:39-06:00

ID

70056

Comment

winston, the posse that is using the "cooked" rhetoric are not saying it needs to be "looked into." THEY ARE MAKING ACCUSATIONS THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING SPEARHEADED BY THE MAYOR AND CHIEF ("top down" means mayor unless you are suggesting Barbour, Bush or God need to be investigated). Your acerbic tone does not reflect concern or even a remote urge for discussion of the differences between investigating THOSE SPECIFIC CASES and implying THE MAYOR and JPD have a conspiracy to fraud numbers including those to the FBI. You say you came here to clarify what Ben said... You have. Now, what other points are you trying to make??? Can you pass the gin, I think I have to drink by asking that question.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-17T16:16:55-06:00

ID

70057

Comment

Winston, you wrote: I think the argument thus far is this: You say that all the complaints are unsubstantiated and proof of nothing. Other people are saying there are complaints that should be investigated and, if true, we need to find out where this is coming from. So, who is being close minded on the topic? Now you will say, like you ALWAYS do, that I have misrepresented your view. If that's your rebuttal, then what is your view? Um, I believe that the complaints are currently, as they stand, proof of nothing. However, naive though I may be, I also believe, at the exact same time, that they should be investigated. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's really not that hard to figure out. You just have to not pre-judge situations based on a few data points that may or may not be true, and may or may not be a representative sample of the whole. It's called logic, something we naive people sometimes employ. Another decision making factoid. Studies have shown (i'll have to peruse my library to find the book) that people tend to make decisions based on one or two early data points, and then search for evidence to support their existing decision. Sound familiar here?

Author

kate

Date

2005-05-17T16:32:14-06:00

ID

70058

Comment

"This also reminds me a little of Wyatt and The Clarion-Ledger editorialists calling for the mayor to come see them more often if he wants better press" Add that Criss dude to the list of the "Mayor won't talk to me" crowd. He complains about how Mayor Ditto made time for him as a young lad; but that Johnson was impossible to get a sit-down with for an interview/Q&A. That's in addition to being named the best Editorial Writer by his readers...LOL!!!! "They are under no obligation to satisfy outside purists." Does Newsweek have no obligation to satisfy outside purists or try to be more responsible in their reporting? PBR?

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T16:37:44-06:00

ID

70059

Comment

So many snipes, so little time. ;-) Where to start? You say that all the complaints are unsubstantiated and proof of nothing. Anyone who says I said that is a a bald-faced liar. For the record. 'm not getting into a fight here. I'm not trying to fight either. I'm answering your posts and pointed allegations toward me, including the subtle ones. I get to do that. Speaking of subtle, please don't forget to explain what you meant by this cryptogram: Given the proclivity of some alt. editors to threaten lawsuits, most people think it's wiser to say "alt. weeklies" than to specify any particular one. Ask the guys at Jacksonsnextmayor.com. Who's threatening whom, winston? Please elaborate. I just wanted to accurately report the gist of the radio show this morning which was not a challenge to you or anyone else other than to say that if you don't believe the reporter (Ben Allen) Now, Ben is not a reporter. He is a public servant. I believe he would be the first to tell you that. then you can talk to the complainants themselves. That's true. I could. But I'm missing the point hereówhy do I need to talk to them if they prove a clear case of fraud, which is what the radio show and so many others have been asserting? Why can't he give the evidence to the friggin' FBI and get this done? Wouldn't that be his responsibility? Or, perhaps he is going to bring it up before City Council tonight? He was not asking you to investigate anything. Then why in @#$% were they talking about the alt press? What do we have to do with anything here if they have the evidence? We're going in circles here. . So, who is being close minded on the topic? Winston, read my lips: I DID NOT SAY IT CAN'T BE TRUE. (Everyone drink now on behalf of winston once again ignorning what I said.) I just think it's ridiculous that they only seem to care about whether we believe it is true, not whether the FBI does anything about it. Dizzy from this circular B.S., winston. I am guilty as charged: I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. People who say they have been wronged by individual officers have not proved the fraud. Please keep up, winston. You seem to have taken on the self-appointed role as the Curtis Sliwa of journalistic integrity here in Jackson. Sleezwa, I like to think of him. You know why, PBR? Because he wasn't a big fan of the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty-thing, either. This is a pitiful analogy, dude. And whether or not you can understand this, a major point of a locally owned alternative is to challenge poor community journalism of corporate media. Will continue doing that as long as we're here, so get used to it. The daily isn't a democracy it is a business. They are under no obligation to satisfy outside purists. This isn't exactly true. Yes, it's a business, as are we. However, we media have an obligation due partly to the extra protection given to us by the First Amendment. I'll quote you some from my journalism ethics book I'm reading right now when I remember to bring it to the officeóabout the ethical need to balance the interests of the community with the demands of the profit margin. Besides, customers get to tell a business how they believe they are doing; it's silly to suggest otherwise.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T16:59:50-06:00

ID

70060

Comment

Now that the conspiracy/"Top-Down" theory of the radio show has been beaten like a pinata, it is pertinant that this morning the idea of a conspiracy was never once mentioned by the hosts. (To my recollection, only one on the show did a caller in allude to a comment that could reflect a conspiracy. Basically, he said that when a rookie officer said to an older officer that they shouldn't mark up a crime from "malicious mischief" to "burlary" because "you know what 'they' told us," he was given a "shut up" look from the older officer). The hosts told individual stories that did in fact happen. Those stories could reflect one of several things - e.g., an officer being lazy or just tired of not having people he/she arrests put in jail and so they are so jaded they've practically given up, could be a conspiracy, etc. It's up to the listener to draw their own conclusion. Regardless of the conclusion to which it ultimately leads, it is newsworthy information. Before turning this into a referendum - supposedly started by the show - on whether or not a larger conspiracy exists, first put the show into its proper context (see Wilson's post above): stories were told. Nothing more; nothing less.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-17T17:01:09-06:00

ID

70061

Comment

I don't think Ben Allen has claimed that the reports from people who called him are exemplary of EVERYONE's experience. I wouldn't think he would. However, the folks who are charging that it is a conspiracy to cook the numbers are making a VERY serious allegation. Just something that should be looked into. I agree with that. Again, I suggest they are reported both to the brass (for individual police officers) and the FBI (to determine whether there's a top-down conspiracy). On that note, I've repeated myself too many times for one night. Headed out for food and drink now. See y'all. Don't draw blood.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T17:01:20-06:00

ID

70062

Comment

I don't think Ben Allen has claimed that the reports from people who called him are exemplary of EVERYONE's experience. I wouldn't think he would. However, the folks who are charging that it is a conspiracy to cook the numbers are making a VERY serious allegation. Just something that should be looked into. I agree with that. Again, I suggest they are reported both to the brass (for individual police officers) and the FBI (to determine whether there's a top-down conspiracy). On that note, I've repeated myself too many times for one night. Headed out for food and drink now. See y'all. Don't draw blood.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T17:02:27-06:00

ID

70063

Comment

OK, drink, I'm still here for a minute. Regardless of the conclusion to which it ultimately leads, it is newsworthy information. No one said it's not newsworthy, Mallen. Quote someone saying that, please. And you keep up, too. My whole point has always been the irresponsibility of saying that the PD and the mayor are cooking statistics (and that would be a conspiracy to commit fraud) as a counter to the news that many do not like that crime may actually be falling (which most people I know believe ANECDOTALLY, especially the ones who live in the city). We seem to be attacked, though, by talk radio and numbskull bloggers because we believe evidence should be presented before this allegation is presented as "equal" to the FBI stats. We/I/the JFP never said that it doesn't matter, or isn't important that individual people are mistreated by individual officers, crimes not recorded right, etc. And if those blab-radio hosts in any way indicated that we have said that (which we can see from the tapes), they are lying sacks of horsesh*t. On that inelegant note, I will depart. Really. P.S. Mallen wrote: (see Wilson's post above): I don't see "Wilson" above; Phelps has more than one attorney, you know. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T17:10:31-06:00

ID

70064

Comment

"(Me) Regardless of the conclusion to which it ultimately leads, it is newsworthy information. "(You)No one said it's not newsworthy, Mallen. Quote someone saying that, please. And you keep up, too. That sure is defensive. Did I ever say you or anyone else said that it wasn't newsworthy?????? Why should I have to quote someone saying that. I never said that anyone did, and reading my comment to suggest that is just plain old reading too much in to it. I I'll quit now, before we start pointing fingers. Here is Winston3's quote (the one I alluded to): Ben Allen, this morning, was only defending himself against the accusation of making "unsubstantiated allegations." It was not a challenge to any weekly to investigate it. He only said that anyone (any alt. weekly) who doesn't believe the accounts as given by Ben Allen, can have the names of the complainants and talk to them herself. To make it anything bigger than that would be less than truthful.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-17T17:19:29-06:00

ID

70065

Comment

But, it really did seem like more then that winston (LSTSB English voice - chill winston...lol), and MAllen, you don't see me getting all worked up because he may be implying that I have been less then truthful about the events on the show. I'm comfortable with my analysis. If a tape appears and Donna sees otherwise or agrees, I'm sure we will all find out how the JFP interprets the tone of the show. If she disagrees, I'll admit to overreacting (too much coffee); but, until we see a transcript or something, I'm sticking by my memory of how the show sounded and how it made me feel about the topic. Trust me, my heart goes out to the entire group of people spoke about today, and that's why this evidence should be turned over by our elected officials to the authorities, and not the public on a radio show or even in an investigative piece by another media outlet until then. What was that Aven said again?

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T17:45:12-06:00

ID

70066

Comment

Oh yeah, I'm not for pointing fingers either. It a win/win if either the current stats are true or a real investigation cleans up the problem. It is a win/lose if we continue down the same path of tearing a new one into the JPD and the city while trying to help bring this city forward in every area as positive citizens and officials.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T17:53:33-06:00

ID

70067

Comment

Lest it not be apparent, the pointing finger bit was meant to be funny - not remotely serious.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-17T18:51:39-06:00

ID

70068

Comment

No, no... I was just agreeing that it wasn't a pointing fingers thing. Bloggers can't point with cramped fingers. Cool on the clarification! The other part was a summary to my prior post.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-05-17T19:36:12-06:00

ID

70069

Comment

Mallen, it's probably a good idea to stop now. You're not really getting anywhere since you (as did, seemingly, the radio hosts) started building a case against something I nor the JFP never saidóthat there cannot be found individuals who have experienced problems with police. Can you give people credit for not being back-ass stupid here? Let's say we can stipulate that point, and if somehow Mssrs. Allen and Nesbit thought they needed to prove the JFP wrong on such an idiotic point, then well they need to think a bit more. That's never been the question at issue. They need to go back and retrieve the actual point. (Also, I bolded the "herself" in your posting above that proves they weren't talking about us. I think it's wonderfully hilarious that the talk-radio guys obsess over the JFPóer, "alt-media"óand then send out emissaries to declare that they're not talking about us, no sirree bob. Y'all go ahead. We're flattered over here in the JFP tower at all the attention. Just don't tell lies about us, please. That's not playing fair, boys.) The question, as I've said now ad nauseum, is whether those individual cases prove that there is a conspiracy of fraud by the JPD, which has been alleged repeatedly as of late. THAT'S the irresponsible part, and trotting out individual people is only using the Fallacy of the Whole (correct name, right?), which seems to be the single most abused logical fallacy on the JFP blog. No make sense, guysóalthough something should be done about the individual problems and police officers. Again, report the individual problems to the brass (and track the results) AND to the FBI if you believe there's a conspiracy. Otherwise, they sound like they're making crap up. If they weren't, why don't they report it. And if they have already, hopefully the fraud will be revealed once and for all. Meantime, though, no one should state it as FACT until it's actually proved. Innocent until guilty, remember? This is America, after all. Your defensiveness point is hilarious, though, Mallen. I always get tickled at the strategy of attacking people's statements, or "challenging" you might call it, and when they respond (especially with stronger arguments), then you tell them they're over-reacting or they're defensive or THEY need to calm down. Giggle. That's a condescending strategy that I've seen the councilman use here several times. And it's a transparent way to try to deflect certain issuesóso do us the honor of not trying to cut out the discussion on points you yourself raised because they're not falling your direction at a particular point. Truth is: I believe the radio hosts doth protest too much. They seem to realize they've been trumpeting a theory without solid evidence, and they're trying to do a little butt-covering on it. I'm sure that's clear to most, so the whole thing rather delights me. And runs up my Web traffic, of course. Party on. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T19:41:32-06:00

ID

70070

Comment

BTW, in case I didn't mention it already, here is the FBI's local poop: 100 W Capitol St, Jackson, 39269 - (601) 948-5000 Make haste, as my mama used to say.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T19:43:26-06:00

ID

70071

Comment

Um, I believe that the complaints are currently, as they stand, proof of nothing. However, naive though I may be, I also believe, at the exact same time, that they should be investigated. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's really not that hard to figure out. Imagine: holding two distinct, equally intelligent thoughts at once. You just have to not pre-judge situations based on a few data points that may or may not be true, and may or may not be a representative sample of the whole. It's called logic, something we naive people sometimes employ. Careful, Kate, don't get Mr. Nesbit started. He'll tell us to take our "logical butts" and leave if we don't like the style of nonsensical logic typically employed by certain folks here in the Great State of Mississippi. You know what they say about them-damned-liberals: "They logical, too. Gotta watch out fer 'em." ;-P

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-17T19:53:25-06:00

ID

70072

Comment

One, Donna: wake up. What I said was not condescending. I wrote a moderately sized post and the one sentence you responded to was one sentence in the entire post that might/possibly could be interpreted as saying you guys weren't reporting something newsworthy. You chose to not respond to the more substantive portions of the statement, but that's your right. And of the statement you chose to respond to, I thought it was a defensive read of the statement. I still do. Newsworthy stuff comes up everyday. It doesn't mean every news outlet reports it. Yesterday, 1180 happened to report something I thought newsworthy. Other news outlets - yours one among many - didn't. That's not a shot at your publication or any other news outlet. That's just the way yesterday, and days before, turned out. News outlets always have to make choices about which of many competing newsworthy items to report. Two, no one from my viewpoint expects to get anywhere on this thread. Where simply providing a competing viewpoint. There are some posters on this board - one in particular comes to mind (not you) - who wouldn't buy a heated blanket from, say, Sen. Santorum if they were stuck in the dead of winter in Alaska. Then they'd turn around and by ice from Daschle. And no, as to those particular individuals (a very small minority of the board), I don't give them more credit than that. Three, quit the emissary garbage. In no way was I - or anyone else - somehow sent out to respond to posts on this thread. I may be related to the hosts; however, and believe it or not, I'm just like another poster, and one with his own viewpoints - both for and against the show. Other people probably did what I did - i.e., come to a thread where people disagree with them rather than go to a thread where everyone agrees with them. It's more fun that way. Four, you're not the only camp to which they were responding. No one is trying to "build a case against the JFP." We're having a discussion. Stop being uncomfortable with it. Many people across the city have bought into the statistics. Perhaps they should. However, there is nothing wrong with bringing to light the many stories which bring into question how accurate the stories are. Lastly, watch out with "you're being condencending" statement. I, and many others, have been told to "keep up" when we write something you disagree with. I don't know what such a statement sounds like to you, but to me...

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-05-18T08:20:34-06:00

ID

70073

Comment

"Watch out" for what? More discussion. Cool; will do. Mallen, I'm not "uncomfortable," dude. Or "paranoid," or any of the other lovely descriptors you have tried to hoist upon me in your non-condescending manner. I am talking. Discussing. Responding. Debating. Don't take it so personally. As for your last statement: I told y'all to "keep up" when you were putting words in my mouth, or motives in my head, and/or responding to things I never said in the first place. Will continue to do that when you put words in my mouth. I realize that sounds condescending to you, and I apologize for that (and admit it. Didn't hurt a bit). However, when you continually try the tactics of attack-then-call-paranoid, then you're going to get some back because that isn't a very sophisticated debate tool. As for WJNT, *I* never criticized that they are "reporting" anything. I think it's fabulous that they would get actual information out rather than racial innuendo like they were doing last week. Really, I do. I remind you that I didn't criticize them for doing that. In fact, I was the one who challenged them to, as winston points out way above. Yesterday, I, did, however challenge them to get over their silly obsession with the "alternative" media and report their information to the FBI (and every media outlet in town) if they, in fact, have enough info to build a strong case of the statistics fraud they've all been alleging for so long. I hope that's already in the works. In case it's not: FBI: 100 W Capitol St, Jackson, 39269 - (601) 948-5000

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-18T10:22:03-06:00