[Editor’s Note: Mr. Notowitz sent this in reaction to the Ferguson police officer-involved shooting. “I have been involved as a forensic audio and video expert with a number of high-profile court cases, he says.”]
As the ability to record high definition video is in everyone’s pocket, and surveillance camera systems are installed in our businesses, homes, government buildings and public spaces, video and audio recorded by this technology is showing up more often as evidence in both civil and criminal courts.
What happens when these recordings are not merely used as evidence but also as entertainment?
Video surveillance and smartphone video of crimes taking place, police actions, slip-and-fall accidents, car accidents and riots is played on television news and the internet every day. While the original recording may be minutes or hours long, what portion of these recordings is actually shown? Typically, only a short portion — the segments which evoke the strongest emotional reaction.
Why does the news media do this? Because they are focused on telling stories with emotions. Because emotional moments make great news, make great ratings, and make more money. In short, the media milks it. Sometimes in their rush to get out a story, the press neglects spending the time to understand and report the deeper context of a news piece. For example, an interview conducted at 7 p.m. is used for the evening news at 11, leaving little or no time to either validate or challenge the accuracy of comments by conducting other interviews.
When Emotions Are a Tripwire
Some viewers then get caught up in the emotion of what they see and hear, react instantly, and decide to protest or even riot in the streets. These individuals neglect to reflect and consider the information objectively. Instead, they allow intense emotions to sway their judgment. They forget there may be another side to the story.
Similarly, in court, we also find that people can get swept away with the emotional gravity of audio or video evidence. When a jury is presented dramatic video and audio evidence, the effect can be more intense than simply viewing other evidence such as fingerprints, pieces of clothing, or a business contract. Because of this intense reaction, it is crucial juries are given the context, the full facts surrounding any audio or video evidence.
It’s not emotions that should sway a jury’s decision. Instead, facts and intellectual honesty as applied to the law must guide their verdict. In the same way, citizens should not let their emotions direct their reactions when they decide to protest or riot.
My company, the National Center for Audio and Video Forensics, has worked in several cases where emotions — triggered by a widely publicized audio or video clip — has overtaken a community like a giant wave of emotion. Prosecution or defense teams may receive death threats, police are labeled as murderers, and witnesses threatened, bullied, and scared to come forward.
But then, over time, as more details of the incident come out, a jury, with a clear picture of the facts and an objective analyses of the video and audio, comes to a very different conclusion than was predicted by the emotional cries of the media and public.
Cases utilizing video and audio evidence need to be objectively evaluated, not emotionally driven. Those evaluations are best done in a court of law, not in the media, not in the streets, and not in our living rooms or offices.
Mr. Notowitz is founder and president of the National Center for Audio and Video Forensics. NCAVF helps to clarify, analyze and prepare video and audio evidence for court cases. http://www.NCAVF.com
