This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a conclusion.
I remember watching a journalist who'd been pepper sprayed by police wash his eyes with bottled water, just outside the restaurant we'd stopped at for lunch.
We live in troubling times.
[1]: https://goo.gl/photos/GfrxTZV4sADJqtgH7
[2]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936
[3]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017
It's absolutely possible that, if the police starts being violent, the violence spreads very quickly and cars get set on fire. Crowd control has a lot of strategy to it...
And his point seemed to be that police being "noticeably absent" from peaceful protests is more simply explained by the fact that those protests were peaceful rather than police presence being the source of violence.
Police brutality is a real issue but indiscriminately blaming the police every time they show up doesn't help the cause.
Let's not give the police the benefit of the doubt. Time and time again across the nation it has been shown that law enforcement is not for the populace-at-large but for the betterment of the state and its agenda - whoever the party in charge.
The "facts" are official sentences such as "we will hold the press accountable", "news media should keep its mouth shut", Spicer lying to the press on day 0 and treating the media as hate objects, etc...
Link to arrests of journalists which took place before Trump was president: https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+metro+police+arrest+journ...
While Trump's views on the First Amendment are disturbing, these arrests do not seem related.
It seems we've entered an era of mostly one-sided journalism - a.k.a. persuasive storytelling.
>The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington declined to comment Wednesday on why the journalists had been charged along with protesters.
News flash: when asked about these kinds of things, it's very common for the police to decline to comment. The job of a reporter doesn't (or shouldn't) stop there.
Sorry, you don't just get to say, "this side of the story was easy to write, so we wrote it; it was too hard to find anything for the other side, so we're publishing anyway and that's a fair representation of the facts."
Just... don't tell anyone anything until March when we have more information?
Come on, don't just complain. It's easy to complain! Everyone complains, all the time. It's totally non-constructive and achieves nothing.
What's the right way of doing it, if this is the wrong way?
- Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained
- Mention the political background of the reporters and/or any history of participating in protests
- Explore legal precedents and ask experts to help explain why they may have been arrested
- At least mention the fact that if we don't know all the facts, we can't assume they were wrongfully charged
EDIT: If you disagree with my comments, please explain why you disagree rather than simply downvoting (ironically, downvoting for the sake of political disagreement only serves a purpose aligned with one-sided journalism - i.e., silencing opposing viewpoints in hopes of advancing one's own political ideology rather than promoting healthy dialogue). Thanks!
Where do you find these people? I assume the piece was written after the protest was over, so there's no way to confirm who was there, and if their story is true. Even so, here's what the article says:
>> Witnesses reported that sweeping arrests during the parade targeted rioters, protesters and journalists indiscriminately.
> Mention the political background of the reporters and/or any history of participating in protests
Ok, great. However, I'm pretty sure if one of the reporters had prior incidents with protests, that would surface pretty quickly. It could be that there's no reason to mention the lack of prior incidents.
> Explore legal precedents and ask experts to help explain why they may have been arrested
What are the experts in these situations? Here's (another) quote from the article:
>> The charges against the journalists — Evan Engel, Alexander Rubinstein, Jack Keller, Matthew Hopard, Shay Horse and Aaron Cantu — have been denounced by organizations dedicated to press freedom. All of those arrested have denied participating in the violence.
The accused have denied participation and "organizations dedicated to press freedom" (are they experts?) have denounced the charges.
> At least mention the fact that if we don't know all the facts, we can't assume they were wrongfully charged
Guilty until proven innocent? That's a troubling attitude to take, especially with all the uncertainties the new Trump administration brings.
I'm pretty sure that, by definition, those would probably be the most biased source you could possibly find. So no, not experts for the sake of balanced reporting. If the article is going to include their opinions, it might as well include the opinion of a random police officer, or at least a lawyer who has dealt with similar cases.
> Guilty until proven innocent?
Nobody said that or implied it. Trump may be president, but in case you weren't aware, the country's legal and judicial systems are no different now than they were a week ago.
What I am saying is that fair journalism shouldn't assume either guilt or innocence in the absence of facts. If you disagree with that then I'm not sure there's much I can say or do to convince you otherwise.
Agreed
> - Mention the political background of the reporters and/or any history of participating in protests
That is (or should be) irrelevant unless you want to support a story. We do not know if they were actively involved.
If you say they were Democrats, some people can conclude they provoked it. Others may think it's the Republicans attacking innocent journalists.
Same with being active in the past. How does that tell anything about this case without creating bias.
What if I was active in environmental protests, but I just cover politics as a job?
> - Explore legal precedents and ask experts to help explain why they may have been arrested
You would need to ask the policemen. Not the "grunts", the ones who gave the order. They should know why they gave it. But they declined to comment. So the answer of any expert might be "if they were detained, they probably did something wrong".
> - At least mention the fact that if we don't know all the facts, we can't assume they were wrongfully charged
I believe we should conclude "they were brought in and it could be for a number of reasons:
a) they broke the law b) they refused to cooperate c) they didn't to the best of their ability prevent someone from breaking the law (I don't know if this concept applies in USA, I'm from Czech Republic) - that includes even just calling a cop d) they were scooped up to sort out later (determine their contribution or provide testimony) e) it was a mistake"
I tend to sound forceful, but I'm not ill willed. I'm trying to raise some points that I think do or don't bring value to reporting on this issue.
Thanks
How does that work exactly?
Unfortunately, it requires a bit of patience (weeks or maybe a few months).
AND this apparently excuses the President's Press Secretary to spend his first press conference insisting on and threatening news outlets over grotesque lies about the size of a crowd?
Is this like a joke thread?
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-ch...
The journalists were not involved with the limo burning... they were caught up in the literally hundreds (yes, hundreds) of people arrested... when everyone knows only a tiny fraction of them were involved with the limo or the few isolated incidents of vandalism.