THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE's account of a traffic recent traffic stop by Houston State Representative Garnet Coleman, Democrat, is righteous -- in placement (front page above the fold), in length (thirty-three paragraphs), and, most importantly, in quality of reporting (credit Madlin Mekelburg and the responsible editor).
Because the story is behind a paywall and because nobody except an old codger like me (alas) reads the paper version of the Chronicle anymore and because you need to see how the story was reported . . .
. . . here are some key paragraphs:
As he presided over a legislative hearing last week about the traffic stop arrest and subsequent suicide of Sandra Bland, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, shared his own recent highway encounter with a "rude and nasty" police officer, in which he said he was "treated like a child."
But a different encounter recorded by the officer's dashboard camera was released Wednesday by the Austin County Sheriff's Office after Coleman passed the deputy's cruiser going 94 mph on July 14.
If there's a quibble, it's this second paragraph. The meaning of what the Chronicle calls a "different encounter" is unclear. Different how?
What's "different," as it turns out, is that the officer's dashboard camera exposed Mr. Coleman as a jerk and a liar, with a clarity that moved even the Chronicle -- long paralyzed by white guilt -- to cover this story the way it did.
The traditional way to handle the problem posed by this second paragraph is to quote someone from the other side, calling the pompous and windy lawmaker what he needs to be called.
But let's give the Chronicle a pass here because the rest of the story does this nicely enough.
Paragraph three:
"The video speaks for itself," Sheriff Jack Brandes said. "I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just putting it out there so the public can decide for themselves what happened."
Paragraphs four and five are a bit problematic, because they give the arrogant Mr. Coleman a forum to double down on his now discredited complaint from paragraph one, but before the Chronicle has quite gotten around to telling us what the video shows. He gets to deny the charge before it is made.
But again, the quality of the rest of the story buys the Chronicle a pass for the fumbles at the top.
Paragraph six:
The dash-cam video shows on of Brandes' [read Brandes's] deputies traveling on Interstate 10 east moving toward exit 718 near Sealy. Coleman's car can be seen passing the officer on the left, who clocks Coleman's speed at 94. The deputy turns on his lights, prompting Coleman to move over to the right lane and turn on his emergency flashers before pulling off onto the shoulders. . . .
The Chronicle then runs what amounts to a transcript of the exchanges between the officer and Mr. Coleman -- a transcript that itself shows the officer treated the lawmaker in a thoroughly professional way.
About midway through, the Chronicle invites a criminal law professor to characterize what had just happened.
Melissa Hamilton, a visiting criminal law scholar at the University of Houston Law Center, said she did not identify anything out of the ordinary with the traffic stop.
"That is so far from him being rude," she said of the deputy's behavior. "He was calm, respectful and understanding of the circumstances of it being a lawmaker, but also making a valid point, which is how (Coleman) was representing to the public (his) respect for the law."
Hamilton said that Coleman, in citing his position in the Legislature, seemed to be asking the officer to treat him differently because he was a state official.
"The politician wanting special treatment is what blares out to me," said Hamilton, a former police officer. "It appears to me that he has a bit of an attitude issue himself. It sounded like early on he wanted to make sure the officer knew who he was . . . . The fact that he didn't give him a ticket was probably because of his office, unfortunately. But the officer did not take it lightly."
There's more good stuff, but you get the idea.
Mr. Coleman -- a Democrat, a progressive, a social-justice warrior -- gave disrespect and got respect. Without that dash-cam video, his allies on the left and many good-hearted folks in the middle and right would have believed him. The Chronicle certainly would have.
But presented with righteous evidence, the news side did the right thing. It'll be fun to see if the editorial side will have anything to say about this.
We are often told about the mistreatment of blacks for the crime of DWB -- driving while black. I, for one, believe it happens. Former Chronicle editorial writer James Campbell wrote a great column about this some years ago. I don't recall the details, but I think he explained how black parents teach their black teenagers how to deal with wrongful traffic stops -- basically by being super-deferential and nonthreatening.
This is a bigger issue with black drivers than white, I acknowledge, but the fact is that all good parents -- white, black, whatever -- teach approximately the same lesson. Police officers have enormous responsibilities and enormous power. They're doing a difficult job that must be done, to insure public peace and safety, including, for instance, safety against drivers going 94 miles per hour.
The human instinct to fight back -- by arguing, complaining, negotiating, and showing disrespect -- is almost always out of place, .even if you are right. Show respect, take your medicine, and fight the good fight -- if it needs fighting -- in court. That's the system.
Mr. Coleman was wrong on the facts. He argued, complained, negotiated, and showed disrespect. He did not take his medicine.
And the bad old officer let him off with a warning ticket, the alternative being a citation that -- in light of Mr. Coleman's past transgression -- might have led -- lawfully, righteously -- to the loss of his driver license.
* * *
Further thoughts, no extra charge:
Mr. Coleman's belligerent and self-righteous attitude was on display to the officer in the traffic stop. It's on display to you, me, and the rest of the world in his refusal to take responsibility for his misdeeds and apologize for them.
This is right out of the Democrat playbook -- a technique perfected by the party's most noble specimens, including President Barack Hussein Obama and president-in-waiting Hillary Rodham Clinton. Never admit fault! Never apologize! Deny your own misdeeds and declare yourself the victim!
Another subgroup with a like absence of character and the same habit of mind is con men (and women). Even after their arrest and as evidence of their perfidy rolls across the fruited plain like a tsunami of old folks cheated out of their life savings, they stoutly maintain their innocence and blame others.
If this lawmaking gig doesn't work out for Mr. Coleman, he's already well-suited to all lines of work that involve taking and spending other people's money.
* * *
And to prove I haven't gone soft on the Houston Chronicle, if Mr. Coleman had been a Republican, the newspaper would have mentioned in the story that he has in the past suffered deep bouts of clinical depression, which he has. It's not relevant and I don't fault the Chronicle for not doing it here. But, again, if Mr. Coleman had been a Republican, I have no doubt but that the Chronicle would have worked this, oh-so-sorrowfully, into the narrative. The public's right to know, you see.
(The Chronicle has mentioned Mr. Coleman's mental illness in the past. Here, for instance.)
Furthermore, while the Chronicle gets credit for mentioning Mr. Coleman's political affiliation ("D-Houston") in the first paragraph, if the miscreant had been a Republican, the editors would probably have found it necessary to refer to him more than once as, for instance, "the Republican lawmaker." And heaven help him if he were a law 'n' order man. Mr. Coleman, however, is reliably soft on crime, so no problem.
It's the same principle that earns leftist organizations nice labels -- "government watchdog" comes to mind -- and right-leaning organizations something less exalted or, in some cases, something snarky and negative.
This is just how modern journalists roll. They don't see what they're doing and, if they do, they don't think it's wrong.
But sometimes, despite it all, they get politically sensitive stories right. So here, with Mr. Coleman.
UPDATE: Thanks for the link from BlogHOUSTON.
Comments