Notes, Dec. 8, 2014. 11:26 PM Having been reading Tweets on the Ferguson Commission's second meeting this evening, I then check the article posted to the Post-Dispatch site. The article is unobjectionable (til further review). However, absent, on first glance, from the Post-Dispatch report: On Twitter we see a different story: The PTSD spoken of by those who reacted viscerally, emotionally, and with outrage to Chief Dotson's attempt to establish a single narrative of events. People also reacted to heavy police presence, itself a trigger for those already traumatized by police action. Finally, there was a sense of indignation that Chief Dotson would speak in a way that sought to justify police actions, including the killing of Vonderitt Myers, while Vonderitt's parents were present, and the meeting itself was being held close to the site where Vonderitt was killed.
How does a public event get represented? How does it get experienced? What does this say about the state tactic of creating a "commission" as a path to supposed solutions?
More anger, action at Ferguson Commission meeting : NewsAddendum, 12:15 AM. And, here's reporter David Hunn's own earlier tweet, left, from the meeting (with a response), that gets at some of the things that don't make it to the newspaper article itself:
Addendum, Dec. 9, 2014, 12:43 PM. Consider St Louis Public Radio's report (J Rosenbaum) on the event, with some audio of Chief Dotson's remarks and audience feedback.
Addendum, Dec. 11, 2014. 9:50 AM. Here is the Ferguson Commission's own description of the meeting.
