2 ms·

> "Is that what the protesters were reporting, that dogs were straining, dogs had their mouths open, that dogs were biting, or is this a bit or artistic license

> "Is that what the protesters were reporting, that dogs were straining, dogs had their mouths open, that dogs were biting, or is this a bit or artistic license?" You don't have to take the protesters word for it, the footage is available on YouTube. I'll dig up a link for you to see it for yourself. EDIT: This video covers the protest, you can see the part where the dogs were used against the protesters: http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8 http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8

kbenson 10y ago
I'm not calling the protester's words into question, I'm asking whether he's attributing those words to the protesters, or those are his words. That's what I meant by "sloppy", as the wording makes it somewhat ambiguous when going by this article alone. IMO it's either sloppy, or overstepping the bounds of what I consider good journalism. I would prefer it be sloppy rather than the alternative, but as I say, it's hard to tell for me. That link would be appreciated.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "That link would be appreciated." Sure, no problem. http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8 http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Thanks for the link. It actually provides a lot of context, and made me reexamine the passage in question. It's clear now that it's an accurate description of the scene in the video. I think I was thrown by what appeared to me to be a shift from a factual, matter-of-fact description of the video shifting to what seemed a more artistic expression of the events when it gets to the actions of the dogs. It's clear now that the portion about the dogs is an accurate, if stylish description of what the video showed. At this point, on reading it again after watching the video, I'm unclear whether my initial response was an odd interpretation on my part, or justified given the information at the time and presentation in the article. In any case, I think it's better to error on the side of caution and giving the benefit of a doubt, so I'll assume the problem was my interpretation, and retract my objection to how it was presented (it may still have been presented sloppily, but I'm not longer qualified to assess that). I do have some observations regarding the video though: 1) It's undoubtedly clear she was attempting to be a journalist based on the video presented. 2) I don't think it's necessarily good journalism, but it is journalism. I would have preferred if she got a statement from the other side regarding the event, or at least attempted it and mentioned whether she was unable to get someone to respond or they responded with no comment. 3) Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out quickly. It also probably happens a lot with reporters and local governments. She's just a larger name so it gets more press. Doesn't make it any less important that those rights are upheld though.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out quickly." I hope you're right. Thank you for your honesty also.

kbenson 10y ago

I'm not calling the protester's words into question, I'm asking whether he's attributing those words to the protesters, or those are his words. That's what I meant by "sloppy", as the wording makes it somewhat ambiguous when going by this article alone. IMO it's either sloppy, or overstepping the bounds of what I consider good journalism. I would prefer it be sloppy rather than the alternative, but as I say, it's hard to tell for me. That link would be appreciated.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "That link would be appreciated." Sure, no problem. http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8 http://youtu.be/VADcWANqBp8
- kbenson 10y ago
  Thanks for the link. It actually provides a lot of context, and made me reexamine the passage in question. It's clear now that it's an accurate description of the scene in the video. I think I was thrown by what appeared to me to be a shift from a factual, matter-of-fact description of the video shifting to what seemed a more artistic expression of the events when it gets to the actions of the dogs. It's clear now that the portion about the dogs is an accurate, if stylish description of what the video showed. At this point, on reading it again after watching the video, I'm unclear whether my initial response was an odd interpretation on my part, or justified given the information at the time and presentation in the article. In any case, I think it's better to error on the side of caution and giving the benefit of a doubt, so I'll assume the problem was my interpretation, and retract my objection to how it was presented (it may still have been presented sloppily, but I'm not longer qualified to assess that). I do have some observations regarding the video though: 1) It's undoubtedly clear she was attempting to be a journalist based on the video presented. 2) I don't think it's necessarily good journalism, but it is journalism. I would have preferred if she got a statement from the other side regarding the event, or at least attempted it and mentioned whether she was unable to get someone to respond or they responded with no comment. 3) Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out quickly. It also probably happens a lot with reporters and local governments. She's just a larger name so it gets more press. Doesn't make it any less important that those rights are upheld though.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "Unless there is evidence she incited people to action in some way, this looks to be a simple first amendment defense, and will be thrown out quickly." I hope you're right. Thank you for your honesty also.