Skip navigation

An interesting point that was raised during┬álecture about the Rodney King case was the implications of using video surveillance evidence as pretty much the sole witness of the entire testimony. In not even calling Rodney King himself to the stand, and instead breaking down frame by frame the video footage, the video itself is treated as a completely objective point of view – which of course, isn’t true. Not only can video footage be manipulated by the filmmaker, either by selecting only certain segments to record or only filming from selective angles (and also the parallel concept of the poor image as someone brought up during lecture), so that the media itself is unreliable, but the interpretation of the media is still up for human and thus subjective reasoning. Video itself is limited in its scope even before it is laid out for various subjects, and therefore is certainly not ideal, perfect, or objective – so what role can it play? Is it successfully interpreted by the person behind the camera, or can it be at all? Is it more or less reliable than the human witnesses present – if it is, is it justifiable to have video surveillance infiltrate more aspects of our lives.