Been a while for any comments. Can't believe that people thought there might be an excuse for this kind of treatment!!
Here's a Cut & Paste of just SOME of the cop's BS I have found while looking into this:
This is the BCI report that Agent Christy S. Palmer sent to John D. Ferrero, Prosecuting Attorney Stark County Ohio.
Dated April 16, 2008 BCI Case #: SI-76-08-14-0147

This is part of page 3

http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Zemo999/?action=view¤t=BCI-Report.jpg

Sheriff Swanson has ALWAYS maintained that Steffey was ASKED & REFUSED to remove her cloths.

But here’s the BCI’s OWN REPORT that PROVES this is a LIE!

And then they try to explain away their first lie with another lie, about why it was done this way without asking Steffey to do it voluntarily.

They are trying to say that Steffey was resisting enough that EIGHT people (5 women, 3 men) couldn't take the chance of ASKING her to remove her cloths, or EVEN TELL HER WHAT WAS GOING ON!!!
What a crock!!

I did NOT see any resisting in the video, I saw eight cops parading her to the cell, with her in cuffs.

In fact EVERY video I have seen she is in cuffs!
And the ONLY times I have seen her react to the cops is after they have assaulted her or in the process of stripping her naked.

But apparently catching the sheriff's dept in a lie isn't a big deal to our "independent" BCI investigator, Christy Palmer, who seems ready to accept ANY excuse the sheriff's dept wants to use.

The report also goes on to say that they lowered Steffey in a slow controlled manner to the floor. Except that Steffey says she was thrown to the floor.
She also told her husband in a phone call that she thought the cops had broken her nose.
And she was treated by the nurse for the injury.
And in page 4 of this report Christy Palmer even states that Steffey reported that her nose was making "crunching noises".

So I guess this is proof of a second LIE! (Or third)

And still Christy Palmer, the "independent investigator" doesn’t think twice about accepting the word of the cops over the VICTIMS in spite of proof.
BTW, Christy also references a video that she says “proves that she was lowered in a slow controlled manner to the floor”. As far as I know, THIS would have to be on the 'non-existent' beginning of the strip video.
On May 5th when I asked about the "missing" video, I was told it would soon be released.
Now here again it looks as though it’s referenced...even though they NOW claim it does not exist.
Interesting. (I have filed a request for this video.)

This isn’t so much an investigation report as it is a smear campaign against Hope Steffey.

The cops can polish this turd as much as want, this STILL STINKS!

BTW I don't know why they bothered to black out the names of Nurse Coren Lennon and the jail psychologist Thomas Anuszkiewicz, aren't they PROUD of the work they do?

Not that this was a hard question but do you think (Obama is) getting an easy ride?

"Easy ride" is an understatement. These so-called journalists (the "real" ones, not those biased devils at FOX) don't do any investigative reporting or question authority when it's "their" team at bat. They are useful idiots and might as well get checks directly from this White House.

My degree is in journalism. When I was in college, I won several awards for investigative reporting.

Y'wanna know where the whole Fourth Estate collapsed? When news became entertainment and when real journalists and real editors were made to kowtow to the marketing department of the networks. The second fatal blow was ABC losing the Food Lion lawsuit in '97. After that, the networks were far less willing to run investigative pieces if they thought there was even the slightest chance they can be sued for it. The third was the repeal of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act (read 'Sleepwalking Through History' by Haines Johnson for a very indepth look on why the repeal was the most important focus of the Reagan administration's early days and the poisonous dividends this historic mistake still pays to this day).

Real journalism will come back, but I believe it'll come back in a form closer to Stewart than Murrow.

hmm, too vague for my taste. with a title like that i was expecting investigative reporting. showing me pictures of things attached to planes with no explanation doesn't help me understand as they could be anything to the untrained eye. I'd like to see some aviation enthusiasts comments on this video

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!

I'm still fascinated wth happened to his face.
I'd love to see a documentary or an investigative report or even pay for a movie ticket explaining wth is going on with him.
but i think something like this won't happen while he's alive.

Part II can be found here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Investigative-report-on-Albertas-oil-sands-mines

The documentary in its entirety is found at: http://www.vbs.tv

Prescient words by Vonnegut on the subject: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kurt-Vonnegut-Addicted-to-oil

Yup. That's some newsworthy investigative reporting right there. Something to be proud of and tell your kids about. Douchebags.

The problem also is.. the general public seems to be more partisan rather than self-thinking, not well read, and with the attention span of a gnat. Mostly thanks to the media environment to begin with.

Give them flashy graphics, tempting headlines, and zero content...and you have their attention. Give them solid investigative reporting with the meat and potatoes facts. They'll get beer and chips during the broadcast, and return to watch the commercials.

This is some piss-poor investigative reporting. Or at least poor argument construction. To recap:

"What can you do to avoid getting ripped off?"

1) The narrator goes on to say that since AA @ $9, C @ $12, and D @ $15 all have the same milliamp/hour rating, that you are therefore being ripped off. So is the video suggesting that bigger, more expensive batteries should last longer than smaller, less expensive ones?

Setting the shameful D cell revelation aside, would it make sense that more materials go into making the larger batteries and that is why the larger batteries cost more? Because they've got more "stuff" in them?

"Energizer knows that people will buy their batteries based on brand-name alone. And that's how they scam you."

Huh? Name recognition is a scam now? What the hell?

Continuing...and I quote

2) "Don't buy energizer batteries. Their C and D sized batteries are scams. Why would anyone want to buy from a company that does this type of thing."

I'm floored by this person's forensic skills. Truly. We've seen how the D cell is a scam but why is the C cell a scam? And why isn't the AA cell a scam? Because it was cheaper than the others?

The smoking gun in the video is the bait and switch D cell, not this elementary school logic of "XYZ is a scam because it's a scam." Pitiful.

I live in a community known as a good place to go when you are living on the streets. We have the resident weirdo homeless, we have the down-on-their-luck families and we have the transient kids. I sometimes keep mcdonalds and taco bell bucks in my wallet and give them to homeless, and they are always very gratefully received. I've lived here a long time, and I know the regulars, and I know the look of the transients. I also know there are kids who come to downtown to beg as a lark. As a matter of fact, my own son has cadged for change downtown.

All that is to say that I know there are fakers, but I also know there are people who really need it. I think I have some chance of telling who is who. I think if I never gave a bit of coin to a beggar, it would be worse for me than it would be to give coin a few times when it wasn't really needed. Now, granted, I am much more likely to give money for a product or service (the people selling tamales or strawberries, for instance, or even a song), but sometimes, as a human being, you have to look at another human being asking for help, and for the tiny amount it costs you, just not say no.

This is an important topic, and I think that investigative reporting is good, but somehow, I can't bring myself to upvote this, because the story seems somewhat meanspirited.

Brian Ross is a top notch investigative reporter, IMHO.

^ there has been a lot of really great independent investigative reports that draw on a multitude of sources. {EDIT} I think the MSM has shied away from the edges of what might seem conspiratorial. Even though certain things that at first seemed conspiratorial, were later proved by evidence to be true. Such as these tapes which showed blatant conflicting testimony{EDIT}
Personally I'm not going to rely on one reporters thoughts while caught up in the craziness of the day. I'm not saying people haven't lied their ass off about certain aspects of this. Hell the stonewalling by the administration alone is enough to give one the impression that there are details that would look really, really bad for them (not perhaps in complicity but in competency.)

But, what would be the simpilest explanation ?

*save - because VS has made the papers:
Idaho Falls Post Register
HEADLINE: Kudos in order for local TV station
BYLINE: By NICK DRAPER

It's time to give credit where credit is due: Well done, KIDK Eyewitness News.
The TV station's investigative report about a phantom pooper has become somewhat of an Internet craze. Type in ""phantom pooper"" on Google and you'll see what I mean. Web sites including Moron.com, i-am-bored.com and a host of others picked up KIDK's Oct. 10 broadcast for all
on the Net to behold. In case you don't already know, here's the background, according to Channel 3: A man has been defecating at the pillars of the Lindsay Boulevard underpass.This act, besides being gross, is upsetting patrons and employees at nearby businesses because the smell has been
drifting to their doors.

I went to check out the area Friday morning to see if things have improved.
Upon parking my car at Outback Steakhouse, I did notice a foul smell
in the air. But I was downwind from a cattle trailer, so there's no way I would have noticed anything except those smelly cows.
And the pillars were noticeably cleaner than the ones KIDK displayed numerous times during its broadcast. But I think that's because it rained the whole day Thursday, not because the pooper decided to find another spot.
It's funny, though. It seems like most of the people logging on to the Web sites replaying the story aren't laughing with KIDK's newsteam - they're laughing at them.

Take Videosift.com for instance, which titles the report ""Phantom Pooper - This is News?"" Someone also left a comment below the video questioning which was worse, the story or KIDK for broadcasting it.
Ouch!
What these Internet low lives fail to realize is this type of behavior needs to be exposed, and Channel 3 did just that. It's a good thing the Idaho Falls Police Department isn't taking this phantom pooper lightly, either.
Lt. Joe Cawley didn't know who was specifically assigned to the case,
but did say officers patrolling the area around the Lindsay Boulevard underpass will be on the lookout for anyone dropping trough.
This guy faces a misdemeanor if they catch him in the act.
Even though some on the Net find the phantom pooper story ridiculous, KIDK is still getting a lot of exposure. And that has to count for something, right?
So kudos to KIDK Eyewitness News.
You really did live up to your new slogan: ""Watching Out for You.""
Cops and courts reporter Nick Draper can be reached at 542-6742.

what a great question for Sift Talk. It's been interesting seeing such a diverse collection for users. A few brought memories while many sound interesting. Thanks for the quality question Rougy.

currently I'm re-reading

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Erhman

From Booklist
The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections.

and I just finished, THE FLUORIDE DECPTION, by Christopher Bryson

From Publishers Weekly
Concerns over fluoridated drinking water have long been derided as the obsession of McCarthyite cranks. But this muckraking j’accuse asserts that fluoride is indeed a dire threat to public health, one foisted upon the nation by a vast conspiracy—not of Communist agents, but of our very own military-industrial complex. Investigative reporter Bryson revisits the decades-long controversy, drawing on mountains of scientific studies, some unearthed from secret archives of government and corporate laboratories, to question the effects of fluoride and the motives of its leading advocates. The efficacy of fluoridated drinking water in preventing tooth decay, he contends, is dubious. Fluoride in its many forms may be one of the most toxic of industrial pollutants, and Bryson cites scientific analyses linking fluoridated drinking water to bone deformities, hyperactivity and a host of other complaints. The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water, he claims, was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride—including the government’s nuclear weapons program. Legendary spin doctors like Edward Bernays exploited the tenuous link between dental hygiene and fluoridation to create markets to stimulate fluoride production and to prove the innocuousness of fluoride compounds, thereby heading off lawsuits by factory workers and others poisoned by industrial fluoride pollution. Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride’s harmfulness, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate.