killen case
I'm not much of a news junkie (pure heresy in a journalism student, I know) but sometimes stuff catches my eye. Despite some hesitation about hitting the "publish post" button, I'm going to throw this opinion piece out there. It may seem as if I'm claiming Killen is innocent, or that I'm on his side; I'm not. However, I do question the system that's calling him to task.
A few days ago, an 80 year old man was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) for killing three men in 1964. In the story Ex-KKK Member Convicted, you can find a bit of the background. You can also find a few things that made me scratch my head.
I understand that covering politically charged issues is difficult for journalists. Conveying a complete picture with tact and honesty—within a word count, no less—is something that stretches the capacity of prose. However, in this case, I have some issues with both the case and the coverage it's being given.
First off, what exactly is an "ex" KKK member? Has he renounced his former beliefs? I googled around, and couldn't find anything declaring Killen's status. Is he no longer KKK because he quit, or because he's now too feeble to pull a bed sheet over his head? While I'll admit that his classification doesn't exactly pertain to the case (the defense admitted he was a member of the KKK, but rightly stated that membership doesn't automatically mean he's guilty,) by stating that Killen is "ex-KKK," the journalist has implied something that may not be true.
Next, how about this image? "Killen, who was in a wheelchair because of a logging accident in which he broke his legs, was surrounded by more than a dozen armed officers as he was wheeled from the courthouse and taken off to jail."
Oooh, scary grumpy old man. Unable to walk. And surrounded by armed police. That makes me question the motivation of the authorities. Are they really afraid that this guy is going to leap out of his wheelchair and attack the nearest black person? Probably not. It was a statement, but I can't quite figure out what kind of statement. Either they were playing up the threat he represents (he may be a frail little old man, but he's an evil, inhuman little old man) or it was an unsubtle move to show the black community how seriously they're taking the matter.
Either way, it’s a scene generated expressly for the media and viewers. Sounds like his guilt in the trial was a foregone conclusion. While I want to see this bastard burn, isn't the way the legal system ought to work.
Was Killen really on trial for what he did, or is he serving as an effigy of every KKK-lynch mob? One man to represent the whole bloody mess of racism, violence, and segregation hardly seems fair. Seems to me that Killen’s trial is a PR-fest to prove how liberal and open-minded Mississippi has become.
The story says, "[Killen] slapped two television microphones and a TV camera on the way out." While this does paint a vivid picture of a vicious old man with a temper, lashing out at the world that's condemning him, it bothers me. Guilty or not (even if his hands aren’t bloody, it’s pretty clear he incited hatred and violence in his role as preacher) he's now presented as a symbol of his time, so that American society can make a show of atonement for past transgressions. Of course he's pissed. Doesn't matter what he says, we're going to crucify him anyway.
And anyway, why the hell was a camera that close to him anyway? Sounds almost like he was being bated—same way you could poke a pitbull with a sharp stick to get a picture of it growling.
Next issue, and possibly the largest—why manslaughter, and not murder? The story states: “With a murder charge, prosecutors had to prove intent to kill. With a manslaughter charge, they had to prove only that a victim died while another crime was being committed.”
I have a hard time believing that you can place a community leader (like Killen was) at lynching and then say the deaths were accidental. Either he is guilty of murder and the charge is stepped down or they can’t prove he’s guilty in this case, but are sure he’s a killer and are slapping him with a lesser charge. Neither sounds too plausible, but as I said, the manslaughter charge smells funny to me.
The rest of the article is full of the predictable rhetoric about heroism, change, and civil rights. Which is good. People need to feel safe, respected, and represented in their own societies. However, the realization that we’re only now addressing these issues, in 2005, makes me sad. It’s something that should have been done decades ago.
Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of solid ground to stand on here. I’m attacking a journalist, a society, and a legal system all in one go. However, I stand by my theory. The Killen case is a kangaroo court trial, legitimatized by political correctness. And the media isn’t going much past the orchestrated veneer.
Yes, Killen needs to be held accountable. Yes, retribution ought to be granted and attitudes altered. However, to say that the conviction is an indication of wonderful change seems more like deliberate rhetoric than a true shift of ideology.
But maybe I’m too pessimistic. Truth told, I have more than a few hesitations about posting this. I don’t want it to be misread. If you’re offended, please understand; just because I’m skeptical about the system attacking Killen doesn’t mean that I’m on Killen’s side.
I’m afraid, however, that we may be letting the media-enhanced “victory” of condemning Killen distract us from the very visible problem of racism and segregation in North American society. The case, which finally addresses the vicious and unnecessary death of three people, shouldn’t be seen as the end of anything. Rather, let it be the first opportunity to call attention to racial segregation and injustice.
The KKK still exists, and even in Canada, racism is something you can find in your own neighbourhood. We’re not done with these issues, and the Killen case does represent something powerfully important. I hope, however, that there is substance behind the show when it comes to atonement, retribution, and justice.
A few days ago, an 80 year old man was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) for killing three men in 1964. In the story Ex-KKK Member Convicted, you can find a bit of the background. You can also find a few things that made me scratch my head.
I understand that covering politically charged issues is difficult for journalists. Conveying a complete picture with tact and honesty—within a word count, no less—is something that stretches the capacity of prose. However, in this case, I have some issues with both the case and the coverage it's being given.
First off, what exactly is an "ex" KKK member? Has he renounced his former beliefs? I googled around, and couldn't find anything declaring Killen's status. Is he no longer KKK because he quit, or because he's now too feeble to pull a bed sheet over his head? While I'll admit that his classification doesn't exactly pertain to the case (the defense admitted he was a member of the KKK, but rightly stated that membership doesn't automatically mean he's guilty,) by stating that Killen is "ex-KKK," the journalist has implied something that may not be true.
Next, how about this image? "Killen, who was in a wheelchair because of a logging accident in which he broke his legs, was surrounded by more than a dozen armed officers as he was wheeled from the courthouse and taken off to jail."
Oooh, scary grumpy old man. Unable to walk. And surrounded by armed police. That makes me question the motivation of the authorities. Are they really afraid that this guy is going to leap out of his wheelchair and attack the nearest black person? Probably not. It was a statement, but I can't quite figure out what kind of statement. Either they were playing up the threat he represents (he may be a frail little old man, but he's an evil, inhuman little old man) or it was an unsubtle move to show the black community how seriously they're taking the matter.
Either way, it’s a scene generated expressly for the media and viewers. Sounds like his guilt in the trial was a foregone conclusion. While I want to see this bastard burn, isn't the way the legal system ought to work.
Was Killen really on trial for what he did, or is he serving as an effigy of every KKK-lynch mob? One man to represent the whole bloody mess of racism, violence, and segregation hardly seems fair. Seems to me that Killen’s trial is a PR-fest to prove how liberal and open-minded Mississippi has become.
The story says, "[Killen] slapped two television microphones and a TV camera on the way out." While this does paint a vivid picture of a vicious old man with a temper, lashing out at the world that's condemning him, it bothers me. Guilty or not (even if his hands aren’t bloody, it’s pretty clear he incited hatred and violence in his role as preacher) he's now presented as a symbol of his time, so that American society can make a show of atonement for past transgressions. Of course he's pissed. Doesn't matter what he says, we're going to crucify him anyway.
And anyway, why the hell was a camera that close to him anyway? Sounds almost like he was being bated—same way you could poke a pitbull with a sharp stick to get a picture of it growling.
Next issue, and possibly the largest—why manslaughter, and not murder? The story states: “With a murder charge, prosecutors had to prove intent to kill. With a manslaughter charge, they had to prove only that a victim died while another crime was being committed.”
I have a hard time believing that you can place a community leader (like Killen was) at lynching and then say the deaths were accidental. Either he is guilty of murder and the charge is stepped down or they can’t prove he’s guilty in this case, but are sure he’s a killer and are slapping him with a lesser charge. Neither sounds too plausible, but as I said, the manslaughter charge smells funny to me.
The rest of the article is full of the predictable rhetoric about heroism, change, and civil rights. Which is good. People need to feel safe, respected, and represented in their own societies. However, the realization that we’re only now addressing these issues, in 2005, makes me sad. It’s something that should have been done decades ago.
Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of solid ground to stand on here. I’m attacking a journalist, a society, and a legal system all in one go. However, I stand by my theory. The Killen case is a kangaroo court trial, legitimatized by political correctness. And the media isn’t going much past the orchestrated veneer.
Yes, Killen needs to be held accountable. Yes, retribution ought to be granted and attitudes altered. However, to say that the conviction is an indication of wonderful change seems more like deliberate rhetoric than a true shift of ideology.
But maybe I’m too pessimistic. Truth told, I have more than a few hesitations about posting this. I don’t want it to be misread. If you’re offended, please understand; just because I’m skeptical about the system attacking Killen doesn’t mean that I’m on Killen’s side.
I’m afraid, however, that we may be letting the media-enhanced “victory” of condemning Killen distract us from the very visible problem of racism and segregation in North American society. The case, which finally addresses the vicious and unnecessary death of three people, shouldn’t be seen as the end of anything. Rather, let it be the first opportunity to call attention to racial segregation and injustice.
The KKK still exists, and even in Canada, racism is something you can find in your own neighbourhood. We’re not done with these issues, and the Killen case does represent something powerfully important. I hope, however, that there is substance behind the show when it comes to atonement, retribution, and justice.
posted by audrey at 2:09 AM
4 Comments:
I find that case pretty interesting myself. It does seem like some kind of attention grab. He was charged with murder also, but found guilty only of manslaughter...
Have you heard about the other case they are resurrecting--the murder of a 14-year-old black boy (he whistled at a white woman or something similar) 49 years ago...it seems to be in the same vein as the Killen case, some sort of gesture toward the civil rights movement. They're exhuming the body and everything apparently.
A. He got 60 years, that's a pretty good symbolic gesture.
B. I'd like to see it the other way, not that this is only a symbolic gesture but that maybe this means they'll finally start going after some of the bastards and face up to what they never have.
C. It may be that the rest of the community is getting off lightly with him as a sacrifice, but at least they've managed 1 sacrifice. Just because he is a sacrifice doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it (as you said).
D. Great yu brought it up - you're excused for any language difficulty you had with this PC subject.
"Killen, who was in a wheelchair because of a logging accident in which he broke his legs, was surrounded by more than a dozen armed officers as he was wheeled from the courthouse and taken off to jail."
They probably gave him an armed guard to protect him from other people, not the other way around. There's obviously a lot of people out there who would like to see him hurt.
Never occured to me that the guard was for his protection, but it makes a lot more sense than my guessing.
Now, did I leap to my conclusion that he was being treated as a threat because of ingrained socialization (racists = evil) or because of the way the journalist presented the information? Hmmm.
Post a Comment
<< Home