4 ms·

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 o

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.

ramenmeal 10y ago
They were charged for lighting a limo on fire. Not exactly reporting.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Because people never get charged for stuff they didn't do.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  Where in the article does it state this? As far as I can tell, they were swept up with others during one of the few violent parts of the protests and are now being charged on what is effectively a technicality.
- rosser 10y ago
  [citation needed]
  - muzz 10y ago
    GP is making it up, so no citation is possible
- colemickens 10y ago
  Good thing you read the article instead of rushing here to defend an authoritarian threatening freedom of speech. 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.
- huragok 10y ago
  You are stating that reporters lit a limousine on fire. Do you honestly believe this?
RA_Fisher 10y ago
I raise it here because I think it's important for us to dig into the details. Any time 200+ people are indiscriminately arrested, I think we should look closely.
scrollaway 10y ago
The administration's extreme anti-press behaviour for the past week (and the months prior to that) contribute far more to those opinions. 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...
- explainthisth 10y ago
  These police are employed by the DC city government, which is run by Democrats. Link to arrests of journalists which took place before Trump was president: https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+metro+police+arrest+journalists&biw=360&bih=518&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2016&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_max:1%2F1%2F2016&q=Protest+journalists+arrested 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.
curiousgeorgio 10y ago
Agreed. I read the article waiting to see the other side of the story, or a least some hints as to what possible justification there could be for the charges. When the other side of the story isn't even mentioned, I'm not sure it qualifies as journalism (even for an opinion piece, that's pretty lousy). It seems we've entered an era of mostly one-sided journalism - a.k.a. persuasive storytelling.
- hudibras 10y ago
  Here's the other side of the story, it's right in the article: >The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington declined to comment Wednesday on why the journalists had been charged along with protesters.
  - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
    And that right there is the sad part. People actually believe that line makes a news piece fair and objective. It's lazy journalism, especially given the headline. 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."
    - shadowmint 10y ago
      Well then, how would you report on it in a way that is appropriate? 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?
      - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
        Just a few ideas off the top of my head (I'm sure there are a lot of other sources as well): - 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!
pcr0 10y ago
Sorted out soon? The reporters have court dates set in mid-February and March[0]. Now every other reporter is under the chilling effect of knowing they might arrested and taken to court for simply covering a protest. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-ch...
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  Being falsely arrested raises the profile of a journalist without much of a downside. I doubt it will have a chilling effect.
brndnmtthws 10y ago
I was there. Protests were peaceful, until the cops started throwing grenades and arresting folks. I took some photos from a distance[1], and also posted a couple videos to twitter[2][3]. There was a heavy police presence on Friday (inauguration day), which was in stark contrast to Saturday (the Women's March), in which the police were noticeably absent. Not surprisingly, there was no violence during the Women's March because there were no police to antagonize people. 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 https://goo.gl/photos/GfrxTZV4sADJqtgH7 [2]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936 https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936 [3]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017 https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017
- Meekro 10y ago
  So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more sense the other way: the police were there because they were needed, to protect bystanders and property from the mob.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    Police is always there during these types of protests. There's plenty of peaceful protests with police around. 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...
  - huragok 10y ago
    99% of people walk a march and 1% torch private property (a limousine): clearly the "mob" is in the wrong.
    - olalonde 10y ago
      That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of parent's comment. I read it as "to protect bystanders and property from the mob [that was violent]". 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.

ramenmeal 10y ago

They were charged for lighting a limo on fire. Not exactly reporting.

knieveltech 10y ago
Because people never get charged for stuff they didn't do.
knowaveragejoe 10y ago
Where in the article does it state this? As far as I can tell, they were swept up with others during one of the few violent parts of the protests and are now being charged on what is effectively a technicality.
rosser 10y ago
[citation needed]
- muzz 10y ago
  GP is making it up, so no citation is possible
colemickens 10y ago
Good thing you read the article instead of rushing here to defend an authoritarian threatening freedom of speech. 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.
huragok 10y ago
You are stating that reporters lit a limousine on fire. Do you honestly believe this?

RA_Fisher 10y ago

I raise it here because I think it's important for us to dig into the details. Any time 200+ people are indiscriminately arrested, I think we should look closely.

scrollaway 10y ago

The administration's extreme anti-press behaviour for the past week (and the months prior to that) contribute far more to those opinions. 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...

explainthisth 10y ago
These police are employed by the DC city government, which is run by Democrats. Link to arrests of journalists which took place before Trump was president: https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+metro+police+arrest+journalists&biw=360&bih=518&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2016&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_max:1%2F1%2F2016&q=Protest+journalists+arrested 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.

curiousgeorgio 10y ago

Agreed. I read the article waiting to see the other side of the story, or a least some hints as to what possible justification there could be for the charges. When the other side of the story isn't even mentioned, I'm not sure it qualifies as journalism (even for an opinion piece, that's pretty lousy). It seems we've entered an era of mostly one-sided journalism - a.k.a. persuasive storytelling.

hudibras 10y ago
Here's the other side of the story, it's right in the article: >The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington declined to comment Wednesday on why the journalists had been charged along with protesters.
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  And that right there is the sad part. People actually believe that line makes a news piece fair and objective. It's lazy journalism, especially given the headline. 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."
  - shadowmint 10y ago
    Well then, how would you report on it in a way that is appropriate? 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?
    - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
      Just a few ideas off the top of my head (I'm sure there are a lot of other sources as well): - 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!

pcr0 10y ago

Sorted out soon? The reporters have court dates set in mid-February and March[0]. Now every other reporter is under the chilling effect of knowing they might arrested and taken to court for simply covering a protest. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-ch...

jeffdavis 10y ago
Being falsely arrested raises the profile of a journalist without much of a downside. I doubt it will have a chilling effect.

brndnmtthws 10y ago

I was there. Protests were peaceful, until the cops started throwing grenades and arresting folks. I took some photos from a distance[1], and also posted a couple videos to twitter[2][3]. There was a heavy police presence on Friday (inauguration day), which was in stark contrast to Saturday (the Women's March), in which the police were noticeably absent. Not surprisingly, there was no violence during the Women's March because there were no police to antagonize people. 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 https://goo.gl/photos/GfrxTZV4sADJqtgH7 [2]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936 https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936 [3]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017 https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017

Meekro 10y ago
So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more sense the other way: the police were there because they were needed, to protect bystanders and property from the mob.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Police is always there during these types of protests. There's plenty of peaceful protests with police around. 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...
- huragok 10y ago
  99% of people walk a march and 1% torch private property (a limousine): clearly the "mob" is in the wrong.
  - olalonde 10y ago
    That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of parent's comment. I read it as "to protect bystanders and property from the mob [that was violent]". 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.