Monday, January 17, 2011
Rodney King NY Times articles
The assigned articles span over a year and highlight different aspects of the beating, trial and ensuing violence, but several themes are universal. In almost every article, the journalist refers back to George Holliday's videotape of the Rodney King beating; the shocking evidence forever immortalized this case and elevated this instance above all other cases of racism or police brutality of that time. The videotape was the catalyst in this explosion of racial tension; one 80 second video spurred riots so destructive that the National Guard had to be called in. The videotape was immediately broadcasted throughout the whole country and world. The degree to which the beating and trial consumed L.A. is enormous: the trial was moved to Ventura County because the judge decided a trial in L.A. would be too biased, and yet almost all of the potential jurors from Simi Valley had already seen the videotape before the trial. But the video also allowed the beating to be removed from any sense of context; in one of the articles, a witness called "Mr. G" described many of the rioters and looters as "opportunistic thugs who have absolutely no feelings about Rodney King and were just out to get stuff for free". The video became an excuse for complete chaos and unchecked brutality, as is seen in journalist Richard Perez-Pena's comparison of the Rodney King video to the video of store owner Soon Ja Du shooting and killing a teenaged customer whom she believed to be shoplifting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Looking back at this response, I remember Cannon talking about how the prosecution relied so heavily on the videotape to save their case. I too was captivated by the videotape. However, for all the people who thought the videotape showed all, we were all in for a surprise when watching the first 10 seconds, where King is seen charging at the officers. Amazing how 10 little seconds completely changed the whole story! The video in fact had the opposite effect any ordinary person following the trial thought it would. The officers were acquitted because the footage was seen as just ambiguous enough; the prosecution could not prove "without a shadow of a doubt" that the officers were not acting in response to a threat. The case and the video seemed so black and white to me at first; now I understand it is a much more complex situation. I was completely fooled by the media's portrayal of the beating.
ReplyDelete