What's their definition of journalist here? Journalists, at these protests, that were arrested?
In other words, how many twitter followers do I need before I can identify as a journalist?!
In other words, how many twitter followers do I need before I can identify as a journalist?!
Why doesn't the site include data from before 2017? We do not feel that data collected retroactively would meet our rigorous research standards. We believe that data collected before we established a tracking system, methodology, and outreach is likely to be less comprehensive and therefore likely to underestimate the number of incidents before 2017.
So it's a record number of journalists arrested since... 2017?!
And finally, the definition of journalist:
Who does the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker count as a journalist? The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker adopts a functional definition of who is a journalist. It doesn’t matter whether the individual has a press pass or went to journalism school, whether they work for The New York Times or work for themselves. What matters is whether the person was performing an act of journalism. The Tracker will count journalists whose rights to gather and disseminate information were violated in the course of their work or as a result of their work.
In the case of border stops, the resistance of U.S. authorities to provide information makes it extremely difficult to identify whether a journalist has been stopped because of their work. So although it is possible that some journalists may be stopped for other reasons, we will report cases of all journalists who are stopped at the border and questioned for a certain amount of time.
A journalist who attends a protest in order to protest publicly, rather than to document the protest, and is arrested or attacked in that capacity will not be counted on the site. While we recognize the importance and the rights of the private citizen who snaps a photo or video of an arrest, this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.
In summary: this is a meaningless article.
Technically this means that a journalist was arrested in this situation, by their definition above: https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beat...
These types of journalists caught many of the instances of police brutality that happened during the protests and got video of things like the burning down of the 3rd Precinct in Minneapolis.
Is that accurate? I strongly disagree with you, if so.
If people are actively engaged in protest (e.g. carrying signs), I agree they are not "journalists."
However, having viewers or not is irrelevant.
Also, let's not pretend even credentialed journalists weren't assaulted and arrested by police.
Because otherwise your analogy makes no sense. Since, you know, you said you would be committing a crime.
The real question is, is this an honest question - are you really asking what other people think, or, are you deliberately implying all the folks in question were somehow criminal?
“While we recognize the importance and the rights of the private citizen who snaps a photo or video of an arrest, this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“
We can self-identify as anything, man. “If you will it, it is no dream.” and all that jazz. (Theodor Herzl)
"...this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“
Your mind seems to be made up, based on your comments here, but I supply the context for others.
Like how police officers have a warrant and specific powers and accountability, could legitimate journalists be recognised, empowered and held accountable like that? Then it could also be an offence to impersonate them.
Otherwise yeah a journalist is just some random person claiming to be a journalist and I'm not sure what could be done about that?
Perhaps a compromise is to identify a journalist by the news network they're associated with.
"In arguments before us, the defence was referred to as the responsible journalism test. This has the value of capturing the essence of the defence in succinct style. However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”"
Decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index...
This explanation is an answer to the question of who's a "legitimate journalist", which is that it should be about what people are doing not who they work for. That's an idea captured in the above case, which reviews some of the laws of other countries on this subject too. It was in the context of defamation, but it's closely linked to your comments about accountability (since the everyday threat is lawsuits, not assault/arrest).
There are, and it usually is a bad thing. Making it "official" is an easy way to gatekeep speech rights.
If you believe it does, why?