Chicago Outraged Over Video Showing Police Killing of Teen.
STELTER: Outrage is the emotion that many citizens in Chicago are feeling right now, with some calling for the resignation of city officials after the release of this police dash-cam video. It shows 17-year-old Laquan McDonald being shot 16 times by an officer who has now been charged with murder. The shooting happened in 2014. And here is how it was initially covered in "The Chicago Tribune." The headline says "Cops, boy, 17, fatally shot by officer after refusing to drop knife." So, it relies entirely on the police point of view. But the video disputes much of what was originally reported. This is a case that demonstrates why hardworking journalists are so important, especially on a local level. And let's show you why. Joining me now from Chicago, Brandon Smith, a freelance journalist who fought for the video's release, and Jim Warren, the chief media correspondent for the Poynter Institute, the former managing editor for "The Chicago Tribune." So, Jim, set the story up for you -- for us all. You say the local media in Chicago really blew this. You say essentially they were producing bulletin board reporting. What went wrong in the initial days after the shooting?</s>JIM WARREN, CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, POYNTER INSTITUTE: Well, for me, the central point here, Brian, is less the video in some ways than the collective failure of journalism to do the sort of tough on-the- ground digging to pierce the official narrative in matters like this. If you think, even after Ferguson, Missouri, even after the Eric Garner case on Staten Island, we're too inclined to simply regurgitate the police blotter. Yes, we have fewer resources than we used to, but there's sort of a lack of intrepid reporting that plays out. And even this morning, my alma mater "The Chicago Tribune," one of the better regional papers in the country, has a long, righteous story calling for an independent investigation of all the failures here. Not once does it step back and say, hey, what was our role here? What was our failure in something that is really encapsulated many days, many even many nights, when a reporter gets to the scene of a shooting, probably unavoidably late. The witnesses are gone. There's the tendency to simply accept the official police narrative, and no real tendency to accept possible alternatives. I think it's a tendency one sees, all forms of journalism, Washington, D.C., covering the private sector, covering, to the extent we do, the nonprofit sector. And that is simply often being shills for established powers. So, one knocks on wood in this case, Brian, that one had a couple of folks who were just a little bit more inquisitive than us in the mainstream media.</s>STELTER: And that does bring us to Brandon. Let me bring you in here. And tell us, why did you decide to FOIA for these videos? So, FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act. It's a way to try to get material from government. You decided to do that after many other media outlets didn't. Why?</s>BRANDON SMITH, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: Well, because the other outlets didn't pursue it any further when they were denied. The -- crucially, the FOIA statute says that there are a few exemptions where the public body doesn't have to give you the information if it falls into one of these. But in this case, the judge ruled that they couldn't use this particular exemption. They were claiming it was an active investigation against the officer. And, in particular, the judge said you didn't -- in the ruling, the judge said the city did not demonstrate that the investigation was going to be harmed if they released this video. And...</s>STELTER: So, this was -- this was all about follow-up, right? This was about you following up repeatedly. And have you gotten everything you want? Are you now submitting more requests for more information? What else do you still want to know?</s>SMITH: There are all kinds of things that are still yet to be known in the case. The video record is incomplete. The police car that had the most clear shot of what happened is -- has no video publicly available. And then the audio of the -- on the tapes, there are five tapes released, the audio is kind of circumspect. It's very faint or missing. And one more video starts halfway through. So, we're looking for the audio. And we're also looking for police statements. My attorney and I in our suit, which is still ongoing, we're looking for statements made by all the police officers on the scene.</s>STELTER: So, Jim, I have to get up to a hard break here, but I guess the takeaway is, do not take no for an answer when you're a journalist.</s>WARREN: Yes.</s>SMITH: Right. I mean, it's a tough lesson.</s>WARREN: Yes. I wish we were all a little bit more intrepid. You can have a huge amount of sympathy for police and the absolutely un -- huge burdens we place on them, to be psychiatrists, to be social workers. We ask too much of them.</s>STELTER: That's right.</s>WARREN: But, at the same time, not so receptive to the official accounts of what happens when they are directly involved in cases like this.</s>STELTER: Jim Warren, Brandon Smith, thank you both for being here this morning.</s>WARREN: My pleasure.</s>STELTER: Coming up next here, all the news, all the analysis you need is in palm of your hands these days, which raises an uncomfortable question. Do I even need to be here? Two experts will help us explore the brave new mobile world of journalism right after this.