Will students lynch Nick Clegg?

[chaggle]

Given that eyewitnesses rarely agree even in the simple cases outlined by Tony earlier I would be highly suspicious of blanket agreement in scenarios where it's just not possible to see what's happening more than a few metres away.

[Matt]

Smudge, you are the one who has been focusing (posts #63 and 65) on claiming that TV coverage gives the wrong impression and that you, being there, had a better idea of what was going on:

Perhaps a sports analogy is not the best. Whilst Smudge did change the scenario from what we typically view with modern interactive tv it's difficult to shake our experiences that the TV cameras often have the best view in the house. (Thought it doesn't compare for atmosphere vs actual attendance)

[Harryprice]

In a controlled environment, if the video is untampered with and gives a complete picture I'd agree. Not in this case.

For example;

Imagine a football match. No commentator. One camera only. That camera with limited movement able to show only a small section of match. That section shown live for only half an hour of the 90. Perhaps there is a narrator, but he too can only see what is within the limited view of that camera.

Does it give an accurate view of the game? No.
Is it wize to assume it does? No.
Is that all the evidence we should consider? No.

No one analysing such a video would make any assumptions about what it does NOT show. But we can assume that the bits it DOES show are far more accurate than any witness testimony of the same events. Just look at how often referees are made fools of by TV replays even from just one angle.

BUT; there are many witnesses. The witness accounts of all players, spectators, match officials, management teams, and stewards contribute to the evidence. In fact, considering their views would be vital to get any real idea of what actually happened in the game. Including minor points like the score!

Multiple witnesses are not much better than individual ones. When witnesses are together they tend to confer, swap stories and produce a consensus view of what they saw and then start to believe it! They will all tell you they saw the same thing even though a TV camera shows you they were all wrong!

All the evidence must be considered.

Of course all evidence is considered but it must be weighted by reliability and a TV camera beats eyewitnesses easily. I regard even the best eyewitness evidence, extracgted through cognitive interviewing, as merely a rough guide. Misperception happens even before a witness is consciously aware of seeing anything so even with an accurate memory, they may simply not have seen what they thought they did. And then there is confabulation and suggestion to consider!

Obviously there are problems with cameras as well but these are generally well-known and can be taken into account. The problemsd with eye witnesses are far greater and not so well-known.

Yes, humans are bias. We know this! This is why conclusions based on limited evidence should not be jumped to! We must be open to the idea that our view, our assumptions, are wrong. They so often are.

The point is that a camera has known limitations that can be accounted for. Eyewitnesses, by comparison, have far more biases from perception to memory, which can only partly be compensated for. Ultimately, what we see in our heads is an illusion created by our brains based on experience, suggestion, bias, sensory input (from multiple senses) and so on. We are very far from neutral recorders of our surroundings. Personally, I would ban uncorroborated eyewitness evidence from court rooms because it is too unreliable. It is interesting how, when faced with CCTV evidence, many people in police custody admit what they did straight away, despite having previously protested their innocence for hours or days.

[Croydon Bob]

Possibly but possibly not, in an overheated situation such as the riot we witnessed on TV. There is a tendency for participants in any intensely emotional event to influence each other very strongly, listening to each other's stories and absorbing them into their own memories, until their own "truths" become a kind of amalgam of their own memories (which may or may not be accurate) and what they heard from other people (which may or may not be accurate).

Yes. I've experienced that myself (not in a riot context).


The main issue I have with the video evidence as presented to us by the traditional media is not the accuracy of little clips, but are we seeing the whole story?

As has been mentioned by someone else, fighting during the miners strike was shown in the wrong order to make it look as if the police were responding to having objects thrown at them, when the reality was that they charged a peaceful picket line and ran away, then the miners started throwing things at them.

I saw the same thing at the big Welling march against the BNP that ended up on the front pages of the tabloids. The agreed route of the march was blocked, the people further back kept moving forwards even though the front of the march couldn't go anywhere, after half an hour there still hadn't been any throwing anything or fighting, the police charged from a side road into the side of the demo on horses with battons attacking peaceful protesters. People started throwing things. When I got home I saw nothing on TV but demonstrators throwing things. Anyone who watched the BBC news will have been given the clear impression that the marchers started it, then the police reacted. Anyone who read a tabloid newspaper article the next day will have seen outright lies.

So a clip of a rioter smashing a window is fine in as far as it identifies that idiot as having committed a crime, but what else happened first? Were the police standing around watching the attack on the Treasury Building without doing anything? Why?

The live footage with lots of helicopter shots was actually very useful in allowing the bigger picture to be seen. the fact that the public were enclosed and being pushed around before the trouble kicked off was clearly seen. Later highlights on the news allow a wider interpretation, and police spokespeople are allowed to lie about the sequence of events unchallenged creating a "two sides to the story" impression.

[Pebble]

Possibly but possibly not, in an overheated situation such as the riot we witnessed on TV. There is a tendency for participants in any intensely emotional event to influence each other very strongly, listening to each other's stories and absorbing them into their own memories, until their own "truths" become a kind of amalgam of their own memories (which may or may not be accurate) and what they heard from other people (which may or may not be accurate).

The problem remains if a large number of people who were there believe that the wrong story is being told, using selective video evidence and - police eyewitness accounts to colour the sequence of events, then a sense of injustice grows.
They may of course be wrong, but they are no more likely to be wrong than police witnesses, I would argue that in general those whose jobs and colleagues jobs are on the line are more likely to ensure that the account they give is professionally manicured
to give a 'correct' impression, so adding bias to unreliability.

[Tony Williams]

The problem remains if a large number of people who were there believe that the wrong story is being told, using selective video evidence and - police eyewitness accounts to colour the sequence of events, then a sense of injustice grows.
They may of course be wrong, but they are no more likely to be wrong than police witnesses, I would argue that in general those whose jobs and colleagues jobs are on the line are more likely to ensure that the account they give is professionally manicured
to give a 'correct' impression, so adding bias to unreliability.

I wouldn't give any more weight to police eyewitness evidence than anyone else's. I wouldn't give it less than the protesters, though - they too had their own agenda (especially those determined on disruption). Which brings me back to the same point; for all of its acknowledged problems, video evidence is far superior to eye witnesses.

[brianp]

The live footage with lots of helicopter shots was actually very useful in allowing the bigger picture to be seen. the fact that the public were enclosed and being pushed around before the trouble kicked off was clearly seen. Later highlights on the news allow a wider interpretation, and police spokespeople are allowed to lie about the sequence of events unchallenged creating a "two sides to the story" impression.

That is quite incorrect again. The video footage and the live coverage showed the start of the trouble quite unequivocally. A mob broke from the march and stormed onto the grassed area of Parliament Square, dismantling barricades as they went. Others charged the police cordon at the end of Victoria Street, attacking them with placards and improvised clubs - police who were not wearing any protective gear at all. That was the point where the first police reaction took place - the police at the cordon were ordered to draw their batons. The crowd was not kettled at that point in any way; the exit onto Whitehall - the only approved route - remained open for a considerable time after this point. The kettling began after several efforts on the part of the mob to break through each of the cordons onto the other unapproved exits from Parliament Square.

I have not heard any police spokesman say anything which is inconsistent with what I saw on the live coverage and, later, the recorded coverage from several independent sources. Many of the statements of protesters, on the other hand, were absolute bullshit - as will be seen in the coming months as individual cases come before the courts complete with news video, CCTV and forensic evidence.

Like most here, I have reservations about kettling, but to blame it for the trouble last Thursday is nonsense. It was a reaction to a very serious outbreak of violence, not the cause. It may well have made things worse within the contained area - but it limited most of the damage to that one area so it achieved something. Does that justify its use? I don't know.

[Pebble]

I wouldn't give any more weight to police eyewitness evidence than anyone else's. I wouldn't give it less than the protesters, though - they too had their own agenda (especially those determined on disruption). Which brings me back to the same point; for all of its acknowledged problems, video evidence is far superior to eye witnesses.

The question arises whether this is the correct weighting. It is commonly held that organisations have a more coherent approach to ensuring that the correct story is told than individuals. Professionals have done this before, they know how their story will be probed, they know which kinds of answers shut down inquiry, which lead to exposure of inconsistencies. The recognise the importance of avoiding contradiction between accounts etc. It is common to have pre-meetings to ensure that the stories told are consistent with each other etc.

Now from the inside this may seem like sensible preparations, but it can easily be construed as conspiratorial. While the average anarchist might wish to influence others to share his/her view point, they cannot bring this level of professionalism to their efforts.

[Croydon Bob]

That is quite incorrect again. The video footage and the live coverage showed the start of the trouble quite unequivocally. A mob broke from the march and stormed onto the grassed area of Parliament Square, dismantling barricades as they went. Others charged the police cordon at the end of Victoria Street, attacking them with placards and improvised clubs - police who were not wearing any protective gear at all. That was the point where the first police reaction took place - the police at the cordon were ordered to draw their batons. The crowd was not kettled at that point in any way; the exit onto Whitehall - the only approved route - remained open for a considerable time after this point. The kettling began after several efforts on the part of the mob to break through each of the cordons onto the other unapproved exits from Parliament Square.

I have not heard any police spokesman say anything which in inconsistent with what I saw on the live coverage and, later, the recorded coverage from several independent sources. Many of the statements of protesters, on the other hand, were absolute bullshit - as will be seen in the coming months as individual cases come before the courts complete with news video, CCTV and forensic evidence.

Congratulations on an excellent post proving the point about how unreliable some people's memories are of events that happened quite recently. I have to say that I wonder if you really were watching events unfold live as nothing you have said in any of your posts has been remotely close to what was actually shown on TV. Perhaps your memory is just in-filling what you wanted to have happened.

[brianp]

Congratulations on an excellent post proving the point about how unreliable some people's memories are of events that happened quite recently. I have to say that I wonder if you really were watching events unfold live as nothing you have said in any of your posts has been remotely close to what was actually shown on TV. Perhaps your memory is just in-filling what you wanted to have happened.

Really Bob, now you're just being offensive. As someone else said - you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Find a decent time-line and you'll see the sequence of events were as I stated - the invasion and occupation of Parliament Square ~2:15, violent attacks against police lines ~3:20, first indication of kettling ~3:40. I've presented my recollection of the live coverage and subsequent BBC and Sky News reports as accurately as I can - I don't think I've distorted anything.

[smudge]

Smudge, you are the one who has been focusing (posts #63 and 65) on claiming that TV coverage gives the wrong impression and that you, being there, had a better idea of what was going on:

To be clear; I was not there and never claimed to be.

But yes, partial, incomplete or edited footage often misleads.

Certainly TV and video evidence may lack context and can therefore be misleading -

EXACTLY!

but at least you can be reasonably sure that what you are seeing actually happened. You do not have anything like the same level of assurance over eye-witness reports, which are far less reliable even when the witnesses are not biased and are trying to be as accurate as possible.

All witnesses are biased. All of us. The best we can hope for is to be aware and skeptical enough of our own views.

We have discussed before on this forum the accumulated evidence that eye-witnesses are terribly inaccurate. There was a TV series a few months back which tested this, taking an average group of people and suddenly springing staged "crimes" right in front of them, then interviewing them as to what happened. Note that the observers were not involved in the events and could all see exactly what was going on - ideal circumstances for accurate observation and reporting. The results were terrible, with every witness making mistakes on every occasion.

The police who were participating in these experiments by interviewing the witnesses very carefully and professionally could only get a reasonably accurate picture of what had happened by comparing all of the accounts and focusing only on the points of agreement, throwing out everything else.

Exactly.
The detectives used the witnesses testimonies as EVIDENCE. They were aware they had to be skeptical. But aware that it was evidence. Without it they would have had no clue. With partial camera coverage the witnesses would still have been vital.

ALL evidence must be considered. Skeptically. But we must be skeptical about TV coverage as well as witnesses.

Now that experiment (I repeat because it's important) was with unbiased witnesses

No such thing Tony.
We are ALL biased. We all are flawed. We all have upbringing, experience, pet hates and confirmation bias engrained.

Then add the final element of mob psychology influencing the witness - of rumours about what was happening "around the corner" flying around the group - and what you're left with is frankly pretty well worthless by itself

Not worthless. Not anywhere near perfect either, I agree. But as my limited footie camera analogy showed (or tried to!), a limited coverage by camera misses important details . Like goals.

Knowing all of this (as we all should in this group), then we should indeed be accepting that while the video evidence will not give a comprehensive overall picture of events and may in individual clips be misleading, it will be vastly superior to the evidence of people participating in the event.

Depending on how misleading the footage it is and what other evidence tells us when viewed skeptically.

[smudge]

Eyewitness evidence is, yes, potentially unreliable, and this is normally demonstrated by a group of eyewitnesses reporting the same event with different emphases and details. When all are saying the same thing, however, I think it is disingenuous to fall back on "eyewitnesses are unreliable".

Possibly but possibly not, in an overheated situation such as the riot we witnessed on TV. There is a tendency for participants in any intensely emotional event to influence each other very strongly, listening to each other's stories and absorbing them into their own memories, until their own "truths" become a kind of amalgam of their own memories (which may or may not be accurate) and what they heard from other people (which may or may not be accurate).

We all know individual eyewitnesses are unreliable. But if their stories are repeated by many, independently corroborated, if other facts and evidence back them up they become stronger and more reliable.

[smudge]

No one analysing such a video would make any assumptions about what it does NOT show.

But I think thats exactly what happens with much TV coverage.
Many see protesters fighting coppers and assume, "must be the protesters fault ENTIRELY".

My point is that the limited TV coverage does not, cannot, show whether any provocation took place. Balancing the TV coverage, eyewitness accounts and personal experiences of kettling and police attitudes and behaviour in similar circumstances I strongly suspect that it did.

The point is that a camera has known limitations that can be accounted for

I'd hope people were aware of those limitations too Harry.

[smudge]

Yes. I've experienced that myself (not in a riot context).


The main issue I have with the video evidence as presented to us by the traditional media is not the accuracy of little clips, but are we seeing the whole story?

Yes. Context matters.
I have experience of good natured protest gone sour through clear provocation. The later (only) shown on TV.
Understandable in a way.
But skeptics, if anyone, should be willing and able to read between the lines.

[Harryprice]

But I think thats exactly what happens with much TV coverage.
Many see protesters fighting coppers and assume, "must be the protesters fault ENTIRELY".

I'm talking about comparing the reliability of video recordings versus eye witnesses rather than TV coverage. If viewers are assuming protesters are at fault it just illustrates the unreliability of eye witnesses.

My point is that the limited TV coverage does not, cannot, show whether any provocation took place. Balancing the TV coverage, eyewitness accounts and personal experiences of kettling and police attitudes and behaviour in similar circumstances I strongly suspect that it did.

We should never expect TV to produce a complete, unbiased version of any news event, even with the best will of the reporters and editors involved. However, if there is a formal enquiry into these events then all the TV recordings, plus CCTV recordings and any videos made by protesters should be pieced together and analysed. These should, in my view, override any eyewitness testimony of the filmed events. For any unfilmed events that happened at the same time, for which there is only uncorroborated eye witness testimony, it would have to be left up to a jury to decide but, personally, I would discount it.

In my experience, some eye witnesses ARE better than others. They are the ones who understand their own limitations, have the least bias about the events and are most experienced in viewing similar situations. But even then, we ALL misperceive and confabulate to some degree so even the best observers can get it wrong.