Pixiq

I think I would apply "Hanlon's razor" in this instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

CERTAIN PARTS OF NANCY DO--APPEAR TO NEED--"HANLON'S RAZOR"---YOU FILL IN THE BLANKS!

She's getting you more exposure and attention. So what if she's been biased? The end result will be that you will be better off because of her covering your story. So why does it matter again?

Regarding "Hanlon's razor", there is nothing precluding someone from being both vicious AND stupid.

AFSHAR IS MORE OF THE SAME MIAMI BIASED "PIGDOM" THAT TRAMPLES THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS-AND THEN SMIRKS ARROGANTLY---THEY ARE ON "THE TIT'S PAYROLL" IN THE SYSTEM. ASK OLD EDNA BUCHANAN ABOUT ASSERTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS-AND HOW SHE SPENT A CAREER SCOOPING KITTY LITTER OVER THE CRAP AND STINK SHE CREATED JUST TO GET A STORY, AND MAKE COPY-AT ANYONE'S EXPENSE! WHEN SHE LATER CAME FACE-TO-FACE WITH SOME OF THOSE EVIL MEMORIES-SHE DIDN'T LIKE IT SO VERY MUCH....WE ASK THE BANAL QUESTION,"IS THE POPE CATHOLIC"?? IF YOU NEED ASK-THERE IS SOMETHING LACKING IN Y-O-U-R FUNDAMENTAL BRAIN COGNITION...!

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, after first reading your description of the article. Still, she does seem to emphasize heavily how many times you've been arrested; how you go into airports and have confrontations; how you were told to not film on the sidewalk -- without mentioning that you had a right to film on the sidewalk; that other photographers were there on the sidewalk and weren't arrested; how you filmed in front of a whole line of cops and weren't arrested; and how you were just trying to go to your car.

Biased? Absolutely. But not as bad as I thought it would be.

Carlos, to address these obvious omissions I'd write an open letter to key members the Herald's masthead, and send it also to the letters page, and CC Afshar.

Call out each problem with the article, and explain how you supplied the reporter with the info.

Rub Afshar's nose in her mistakes.

I don't know if she's actually guilty of being either stupid or malicious, but it does seem she's a bit lazy.

"later claimed that some of the film from his camera was missing...he was later able to recover the footage from his internal hard drive days"

She seems to be a little confused about whether you were using film or digital. Not the most important detail of the story, perhaps, but shouldn't she at least try to clarify?

"The outcome of all of these cases are[sic] unknown"

Is her editor also lazy?

Carlos,

The bias part aside, the one thing that does stand out about her article is that she clearly held back information you told her already, she did not include all the facts which she was in possesion of, which either makes her complicit or just another poor excuse for a news journalist/reporter.
Her article has no depth, no information thats really new, nor is it very well written.
I'd bet good money that if it were her that was arrested and singled out of a group of journalists, the Miami Herald and her would be screaming bloody murder!

Looks like it's been edited to get rid of the "outcomes unknown" part.

As is too common, Carlos' case is harmed by his lack of self-control. He loses a huge block of potentially sympathetic people when he shouts at the cop, "Goddamn, why the f--- did you have to block the shot?”

I have been interviewed many times, always in a benign context, and yet I have never seen the story come out with accuracy. I have wracked my brain over the disconnect between the stories as reported, and the stories as told. I was a journalism major, and worked in television for awhile, and I have concluded that the disconnect is attributable to one or more of the following:

1. Most reporters (like most people) are not great listeners.

2. To the extent they listen, most reporters (like most people) are selective listeners. They have an expectation, and they only hear what fits that expectation. It's a kind of bias, but not a malicious bias.

3. Most reporters take poor notes, which when combined with bad listening, is kind of a disaster. With tape/digital recorders, this should not be an issue.

4. Stories are made of conflict, whether be it short stories, novels or newspaper articles. Omission of facts that reduce the conflict or close too many loops makes for a better story. Journalists today are concerned more with the impact of the story, and less with accuracy. The media they work for encourage that approach, up to the point where inaccuracy would result in a lawsuit. Call it the influence of television, and more recently the Internet. That approach, however, does not fit the expectations of those interviewed, nor the readers, which for some reason still expect unbiased reporting (except on Fox News). Of course, the readers don't know the difference, by and large.

5. Stories tend to favor the journalist's regular sources, since that's where the journalist goes for info. If the journalist regularly speaks to the Police Information Officer, they have a working relationship. The journalist will probably never need you again. I don't think this is a conscious bias, but I think it is there.

6. The distribution of intelligence among journalists is no greater (and presumably no less) than among the general population, which is unfortunate since they can be so influential.

I agree with Jon's suggestion regarding the letter, but not necessarily with his suggested purpose (rubbing his/her nose in it). Take the high road. Plus, if your letter comes off as too acerbic (or too long), it will largely be ignored, and certainly will not be published in the paper.

She screwed you, period. She had the facts and intentionally omitted them. She didn't forget you were exonerated/found not guilty in those cases.

She tried to remain neutral instead of reporting the facts.

I'd write her bosses, as others said, and I'd comment on the post in the story below WITH THE FACTS.

That's not a lazy or stupid journalist, it's far worse: bias, as you noted.

Notliberal

Being employed as a reporter does not shield you from a libel lawsuit. Far too many reporters forget that, especially when talking about someone they consider to be a "fake" journalist like a blogger.

The article has also drawn a fair share of commenters stating I deserved to be arrested. I've been getting several calls and messages from friends saying Afshar was biased in her reporting. What do you think?

It's certainly sloppy journalism, considering the fact that even if the reporter didn't believe you, that stuff is a matter of public record. Whether it was intentional or simply an oversight due to laziness or tight deadlines is impossible to tell, although I would lean toward the latter.

But this story and the comments that follow it illustrate a sadder reality to me. I think we live in a world where rights are not suddenly wrested from our grips, but eroded over time as cops encroach and encroach and encroach, taking away some of our rights away and then a little bit more and then all of it. (To them, it's nothing personal, they've got a job to do and this is the easiest way they find to do it -- although there are certainly some who like to use their power to attack people who annoy them.)

And we live in a world where most everyone sees someone who stands up to that little bit of an encroachment, someone who decides he/she is not going to take it anymore instead of do the easy thing and just move along now, as a troublemaker. We live in a world where the police assert their rights to do anything that they please, and where the populace as a whole says whatever you say officer, I don't want any trouble officer.

It's a sad reality, and one that plays over and over again throughout history and throughout formerly freedom-loving cultures. It's just how it is. We may not trust the police with everything, but we have to recognize that the vast majority of Americans do. That is why people will flood comments to tell you how much of a jerk you are and how you should be arrested, and why journalists will generally look askance at "troublemakers" like you and look to get the real story from the police.

Here is the full video recorded by Rick Bravo of the MDPD. They videotaped Carlos' arrest. http://www.youtube.com/rawdashcam