The media is NOT being suppressed by law enforcement in Ferguson

I'd like to start by presenting some examples of "media suppression": We could consider locations such as Eritrea, where journalists are simply "assigned" to work and report on specific topics with no editorial freedom. All dissent is met with years in jail, and any foreign correspondents are turned away. Turkmenistan, where internet access is limited to constrict the flow of unwanted information. China, where journalists are imposed with restricted access or travel bans if they are deemed "antistate". Vietnam, where even reporting on specific topics is a crime accompanied by jail time. Or Belarus, where citizens were denied access to social media in an attempt to conceal civil unrest. (1) All of these locations have a desire to suppress information leaving and arriving, and do so to keep the scales of control in their favor. By controlling information, the authorities control the public opinion. By controlling public opinion - you control the people. Please understand I don't believe that Ferguson PD is capable of internet proxy attacks, satellite scrambling, "assigning stories" to journalists or long term jail sentences for dissent. But other problems arise when comparing the situation in Missouri with these listed above. HOW are the law enforcement agencies carrying out this suppression? No concentrated efforts have been made to restrict cellular, internet, or email access in any way. No recording equipment, documentation, or evidence has been destroyed or unlawfully confiscated. No journalists, as of August 21st, have been charged with a crime or held without charges for what ANY state in the US considers unreasonable. One must wonder, exactly what is the police force doing that is considered "suppression of the media" WHY would law enforcement agencies attempt media suppression? It's not to hide the shooting that occured on August 9th. It's not to hide the protests or riots; they've both been happening almost every day since the shooting and are internationally recognized. It's not to hide police actions, as the FBI is already investigating with much more thoroughness and scrutiny than the media ever will. So what is my opponent claiming the law enforcement agencies in Ferguson are attempting to conceal? Speaking of agencies Who is responsible for these supposed violations of rights? It's not the local police; they enacted an operational shift only three days after the incident, effectively handing all policing matters over to state authorities. (2) The National Guard has been involved in assisting in operations. (3) The FBI has opened an investigation on both the shooting AND the entire department of Ferguson, sending 40 agents to do an investigation - only 2 days after the incident. (4) These entities have all been in communication and cooperation with one another, the mayor of Ferguson, the governor of Missouri, and the Attorney General of the United States. (5) No authority involved in the aftermath of this tragedy has the means or desire to prevent the media from reporting the events in Ferguson. Doing so would only make people angrier, make policing harder and more dangerous, and make their shifts away from home. The claim that a law enforcement agency is involved in suppression of the media begins to look more and more like a conspiracy, with unrelated agencies either disregarding or participating in unconstitutional acts on a city-wide scale. What we're seeing in the wake of the tragedy in Ferguson are isolated abuses of authority, confusion among chaos, and tensions on edge. They deserve attention, and require an answer, but in no way indicate there is a widespread attempt to suppress the media. Much in the same way we shouldn't consider the peaceful protestors to be rioting because of a handful of looters, we shouldn't consider the police being oppressive because a handful of bad encounters. (1) All information on foreign media suppression can be viewed here: http://cpj.org... (2) http://www.nytimes.com... (3) http://www.usatoday.com... (4) http://stlouis.cbslocal.com... (5) http://www.stltoday.com... I hand the reins back to CON, and look forward to reading the argument.