he level of force tat is being used in their apprehending. Throughout the years, media has played a major part through keeping the public advised on events that are taking place around the world. Late breaking news and special reports tend to keep the publics attention longer than other broadcasts shown on television. For the most part, the media is our front line of information. Despite the incomplete evidence, viewers tend to pass judgment on the situation before all of the facts have been confirmed. I don't think people realize that over all, the story comes first, and you will only see what the media wants you to see, and have you believing what it is that they want you to believe. How juicy can the media possible make it, and what is it that makes the media want to talk about it or show it on the air; Is it ratings; Is it exposure; or is it just something to talk about, and make judgments about? The main point that I am trying to get across is the fact that in covering stories involving police officers taking extreme measures in apprehending suspects, the media is focusing on racism as the central issue at hand rather than simply reporting on the abuse of law enforcement.
             Violence is top priority to the press due to the fact that this is what keeps peoples attention. If an act of violence is occurring, the press is the first ones to arrive at the scene, especially if it is of interest to the public. For example, violence between different ethnic backgrounds is always a popular topic to juice up within the media. This is especially true in recent cases of brutality by police on minority victims or victims of another background than the officer involved. The fact is that cases like these are what the media looks for. In a lot of cases the only portion of an incident that you see is the last part of an incident. Isn't it funny that you never seem to be able to view the contents of what lead up to the altercation? Do...