This is why I no longer pay attention or give any credence to IndyMedia stories:

SLOPPY journalism. And nobody wants to learn how to do it right. Doing it right is "too corporate."

It is "too corporate" to verify an anonymous source. How can you determine the veracity of a statement if the writer will not stand publicly by his or her words?

The reason the "corporate media" didn't give any attention to this email is that they had no way to question the source.

When you are charged with something, whether it is attempted homicide or police brutality, you have the constitutional right to confront your accuser. According to the culture of IndyMedia, it's ok to publish unverifiable information as long as it supports a left/liberal perspective on events.

If you were real journalists (that is, people who know what they are doing), you would insist upon tracking down the source of that statement.

If you want people to take you seriously then do a serious job of reporting, no matter which direction the evidence takes you.

As for nobody talking to "eyewitnesses": gimme a break. I guess the officers at the scene don't count as "eyewitnesses" because they wear a uniform. And you can bet they talked to any and everyone who was in the vicinity, eyewitness or not.

Someone reads an anonymous email on a radio station, and that somehow provides "evidence" of police brutality.

If that anonymous email charged an IndyMedia "reporter" with something you can bet you all would be all over it like white on rice arguing that it was a "corporate lie," the proof being in the fact that the writer would not come forward and stand behind his/her words.

Anyone can say anything if they don't have to face cross-examination.