The Forte vs. Mahoney smackdown
Yael T. AbouhalkahWednesday’s smackdown between Kansas City Police Chief Darryl Forte and Channel 9 reporter Micheal Mahoney was great media theater, or as good as it gets in this market.
Most public officials in the area are used to Mahoney’s in-your-face interviewing techniques. He’s a sharp TV reporter with good knowledge of local events.
But Forte didn’t want to talk to Mahoney on Wednesday, after the chief made some public comments before a Kansas City Council committee on how to reduce violent crime in the city.
Mahoney wanted some specifics in an interview after Forte’s testimony; the chief didn’t want to give the reporter any additional information,as you can see here.
That would have been the end of it, probably, leading to a bit of a gotcha report later on Channel 9..
Then Forte upped the ante, getting on his new Twitter account ( @chiefforte ) to say this:
“Just left a City Council Public Safety Committee meeting. Encountered a rude reporter from channel 9. Unbelievable!!!”
Mahoney later posted on his blog: “This would be me.”
Forte’s post semi-exploded in the local Twitter world, with several people weighing in with negative remarks about the chief’s response to Mahoney:
@vivid13 : “So @ChiefForte got his manpanties bunched up b/c @kmbc’s Michael Mahoney posed basic Qs about the “No Violence Alliance”. Suck it up, chief.”
@kccheckpoint : “@chiefforte you are the face of the PD, act like it. No wonder witnesses remain silent.”
@heuback : “Hilarious twt frm KC Chief of Police, fully-grown adult”
My take: The chief could have taken a question or two from Mahoney, saying the same thing he did last week in public when I was there for an interview: He doesn’t want to get into specifics about fighting crime.
As it is, this was a small hit to Chief Forte’s attempt to show he’s open and willing to talk about KC’s sky-high violent crime rate.
Robert Copher
11 months, 2 weeks agoThe Chief did seem like somewhat of a puppet, unable to respond, until he checked with those really responsible for this initiative. I hope Mr Mahoney will continue to investigate so he can ask the questions to the right people. My impression, since hearing of this initiative was that is was over-reaching. Aggresively investigating crimes is not over-reaching. Seemingly willing to coherse witnesses in order to go after targeted suspects is very concerning. After recently hearing that any male within the kill zone of a drone attack, of military age, will automatically be classified as a combatant, I am growing more concerned about some efforts to target unwanted’s in the name of “protection”. If local efforts to reduce violent crimes take on that same attitude, there will be collateral damage in the name of “getting their man”. As I’ve said before, stop trying to make your fears ours. Your efforts have become intrusive and dangerous to innocent bystanders. And isn’t that what you’re trying to avoid?
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 2 weeks agoThe Chief is obviously not a media pro, or he would not have stonewalled, then tweeted foolishly. The Prosecutor did way better.
Of course, police are not used to even semi-tough questions. Heck, even high, slow softballs seem scary.
Gopher raises a reasonable question about “targeting” by law enforcement — and selective law enforcement to help that targeting. We have found that it is a lot easier for the Feds to target guys who grow or sell marijusna than the Wall Street guys who lie, cheat, steal and destroy the economy.
Maybe violent criminals should get special attention. But the criteria for who and how many is something that the public should be able to know and understand. We should be entitled to judge the wisdom of such selectivity by our public employees.
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 2 weeks agoGosh, KF!
Did I misread the stories and all this violence is being accomplished with knives and numchucks? Oh, wait. They were ALL shootings with GUNS! Funny how that misses the attention of the Right.
Gangs are bad. Gangs without guns would be less bad. It is WAY harder to kill with other weapons. Potential victims fight back or run really fast. Ever hear of an innocent third party killed in a drive-by knifing?
And NONE of this violence is “drug-related.” Some IS related to the profits to be made from the fact that drugs are illegal. You know “drug-prohibition-related”. Nobody gets shot over the Advil concesssion. If CVS and Walgreen have a disagreement, they can go to court.