To be sure, the Journal is a for-profit enterprise. Selling papers and ad-space are their primary missions. But given the amount of influence they have on their reader’s knowledge base are they not subject to higher standards and have a duty to be objective in their reporting of all that is newsworthy? Or are they merely a device for government propaganda? William Randolph Hearst, a legend in the newspaper business, once remarked, “News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else is advertising.” It seems the Journal prints nothing but corporate and government advertising because it rarely reports anything but news consistent with the Schultz/Berry agenda.
We proved a few days ago, the Journal is far from being unbiased and objective in its endless criticism of APD officers and endless praise of Ray Schultz. Likewise, it never finds error in Albuquerque’s mayor, RJ Berry, and always holds individual employees accountable even though Berry has led the city into a “death spiral” as Forbes Magazine reported last month. This is a dangerous position to hold, because while those who are truly informed know, Ray Schultz is THE PROBLEM with APD; not individual officers. But it seems the public readily agrees with the paper. But why is it that something so obvious is overlooked by so many?
In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre, pundits once again began talking about the influence the media has over the general population. Theories abound (and support exists for many) where violence sensationalized on TV and in the paper simply invite copy-cat actions. But for the tragedy in Aurora earlier this summer they argue, would Newtown have occurred?
“Reinforcement theory” asserts this very principle. In general, the theory holds that people seek out information/stimuli that support their pre-existing attitudes and beliefs. If they know a given action will result in tremendous media exposure and they desire that exposure, regardless how heinous the act, they will act in a manner they know the media will cover. Their beliefs gratified even if it means they kill themselves and are no longer witness to the coverage. If the killer in Newtown was so bent on self-destruction, why not just end it by yourself without affecting so many families and people with your own personal horror?
We have our own example of reinforcement theory here in Albuquerque. Because little to nothing is reported to the general population about how poorly officers are treated by Schultz, how individual misconduct is sensationalized to the point where it has tainted the entire pool of police officers in New Mexico, how Schultz evades and denies responsibility for ANY department issue, and how deficient management personnel are in APD, the Journal has trained the general population that APD leaders are generally infallible because individual officers are where the problem lies.
Even though the reality is APD supervisors, commanders, deputy chiefs, and even Schultz himself have been held liable for crimes, violations of law, personal misconduct, and acts of atrocity, the general public is resistant to such reports because it is in conflict with what the Journal has reinforced upon them. Even though the knowledge of Schultz and his staff’s misconduct is widely known and taken as fact for APD employees, it is largely unknown to the general population.
• When a patrol officer was found to have sent inappropriate texts to a citizen, the Journal had a front page story and a week ending editorial almost immediately. Yet when deputy-chiefs text images of a deceased civil rights lawyer, there is nothing reported in the paper.
•When SWAT lieutenant, and defendant, Tim Lopez committed battery upon two of his own subordinate officers there was nothing in the media reporting the incident, even though it has been widely known since last summer.
•When Schultz states there’s a promotional system involving total transparency and a third party vendor he omits commanders and deputy chiefs are NOT INCLUDED in that process—yet another lie.
•When Schultz states he hasn’t received any notice about officers retiring and stating morale is at an all-time low—and the letters are publicly presented here or in the paper, Schultz lies again.
Thanks to the Journal’s suppression of such reports, the public remains largely uninformed. Additionally, even as stories break out there is general resistance because they are challenged by something called “cognitive dissonance.” Cognitive dissonance simply holds that people do not like to have previously-held beliefs challenged and will look elsewhere to find information more in line with their beliefs—regardless of how preposterous they are. Thanks to the Journal the public’s perception is that DOJ is here because of the actions by individual officers when in reality it is because of Schultz and his minion’s mismanagement of APD.
After three years of endless praise by the Albuquerque Journal it is clear now with the DOJ investigating Schultz and his tenure as chief of APD something is wrong with the paper’s editor, Kent Walz. Perhaps his cognitive dissonance is so strong he simply cannot see the truth for matter at hand: he has supported an incompetent person as chief of APD and an incompetent person as mayor of Albuquerque.
Over 2012 we have revealed in brutal detail the lies Schultz's position as APD’s chief is built on. Thanks to our posters, those stories get even more detailed with the cold, hard, and often profane, reality of what it’s like to operate under the Schultz regime. 2013 will no doubt bring more brutal details, and it is up to all of us to let the general public know and break the Journal’s reinforcement of Schultz and Berry’s lies…
To our loyal readers and regular commenters (posters)…Thank You! 2013 we will bring you much more. Thanks to our patrons; you will always be rewarded with the truth. Our readership has increased two fold this past year and we intend on continuing with this movement.