As a journalist, I generally judge news outlets that find it necessary to run warm and fuzzy stories about lost kittens that have been returned home, dogs that saved their owners’ lives, or young children with a desire to help the less fortunate: the running joke is typically, “Guess it was a slow news day.” As awful as it sounds–especially considering the recent Murdoch/News Corp. scandal–subjects largely considered depressing, controversial, or frustrating make the best news stories because they tend to generate more traffic. As much as people say they want happier, more uplifting stories, their news consumption practices tell us otherwise. Yet every now and then, you come across a great feature article about someone somewhere doing something great–and by great I mean interesting, innovative, and beneficial to society. So despite the resignation of the Scotland Yard commissioner and the realization that News Corp. corruption possibly reaches into the highest levels of law enforcement and government, today seems like one of those days.
The justice system seems to be attempting to keep up with the growing complexity of today’s hot-button issues, at least in some jurisdictions. The New York Times ran a story about a court program in New York focused on rehabilitating veterans who get into trouble with the law after returning home. The article profiles one veteran, who suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder and eventually attempted suicide by cop, as law enforcement has termed it: because of the program, he won’t be getting prison time and instead will be receiving the treatment he needs, with the felony either being expunged from his record or downgraded to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of the court-ordered program. Despite criticism that this type of program may transform PTSD into a “get out of jail free” card, the judge who founded this special court for veterans should be commended for upholding the responsibility this country has to the people it sends to fight its wars. PTSD should be an exception, especially when criminal behavior can be traced directly to its effects. It seems like New York is becoming the site of revolutionary social change these days (look no further than the recent legalization of gay marriage)–let’s hope the rest of the country follows its lead.
Another encouraging story in the New York Times today: a government official in India is hoping to increase transparency and voters’ confidence in the system by installing a webcam in his office, which will remain on and accessible to the public 24/7. From the article’s description, it sounds like C-SPAN on a smaller scale–and without sound, supposedly, the official says, so his colleagues can feel comfortable entering his office and speaking with him freely. In that case, I’m not sure how much of a deterrent against corruption the webcam’s presence will be: after all, as the article points out, bribes can easily be exchanged outside the office door, and in my view, duplicitous deals can also be made in plain sight, as long as the footage appears ordinary and routine. Nonetheless, the webcam is a step in the right direction, and even though such a system isn’t in place nationally, it should at least have some effect on local corruption.
Suit Yourself 