CNN Presented Only Facts, Not Criticism, During the Boston Lockdown

During the Boston lockdown, I watched CNN’s live news coverage at home all day and gained two insights.

The first matter relates to the professionalism of the U.S. media. During the lockdown, in order to avoid disclosing police action and information, CNN cooperated with the police and only reported what it could see from outside the blockade, informing viewers of the inconvenience of showing related video. In many instances, CNN did not use live footage in its reports, but substituted previously shown video instead, in cooperation with police operations.

Furthermore, after the suspect was arrested, CNN’s first topic of discussion did not involve the host asking guests what the suspect did while in the boat or repeating how the police apprehended him. Rather, the discussion focused on how the FBI did not read the suspect his Miranda rights, telling him his rights – including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

The U.S. media and public did not lose their sense of reason out of sorrow and anger, nor did they hurl a great deal of abuse at the suspect. Indeed, they cared that the suspect did not receive the proper safeguards in a criminal procedure. How many years of accumulated education must it take for a society to achieve this degree of rationality? In this incident, the U.S., a country with only about 200 years of history, set a fine example.

The suspect sustained injuries when he was finally arrested, but following his capture and admittance into a hospital, the media could not obtain and report the details of his injuries, the police interrogation or the investigation progress, all of which protected the patient’s basic right to privacy. The substance of the investigation was also not made public. The professionalism of not only the media but also the hospital and police investigators resulted in this nondisclosure of sensitive information.

Perhaps its reporting occasionally exhibited some excess Americanism, but CNN did not provide too much sensational coverage that crossed the line. It simply reported information released by the police. Other than discussions on both sides of the Miranda rights issue, CNN did not supply further criticism and straightforwardly presented facts. The suspect, in the end, was just a suspect.

Is the Taiwanese Media Professional?

Secondly, which is more frightening? Both government and anti-government actions are founded on fear. When people experience bombs exploding not far from residences, will they be willing to allow the government to bring heavy weaponry into homes and conduct intrusive searches in order to apprehend a suspect? Many might answer in the affirmative. While in the moment, people regard possible danger as a far greater concern than possible human rights violations.

Following this attack, no one can predict to what extent the U.S. will compromise people’s rights and normal procedures in order to soothe fears of unknowable menaces. But whether fear itself actually begets more danger is an issue worth deep consideration.

Returning to Taiwan, is it really necessary for us to endlessly sacrifice human rights because of fear?