3 ms·

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. W

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!
      - rootlocus 10y ago
        > Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained 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.
    - jeffdavis 10y ago
      What's so bad about waiting until March?
  - colemickens 10y ago
    So no one can report on anything when the authority with power refuse to comment on why they imprisoned a citizen? How does that work exactly?
    - jeffdavis 10y ago
      The police will make their case at a public trial where all sides can present evidence. That's the best system we've come up with for arriving at the truth. Unfortunately, it requires a bit of patience (weeks or maybe a few months).
toss1941 10y ago
And it's this kind of reporting that fuels the need for 'alternate facts' because the facts presented so often leave a lot to be desired.
- colemickens 10y ago
  So because the police refused to comment on felony charges and imprisonment of journalists and citizens... no one can report on anything... 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?

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!
    - rootlocus 10y ago
      > Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained 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.
  - jeffdavis 10y ago
    What's so bad about waiting until March?
- colemickens 10y ago
  So no one can report on anything when the authority with power refuse to comment on why they imprisoned a citizen? How does that work exactly?
  - jeffdavis 10y ago
    The police will make their case at a public trial where all sides can present evidence. That's the best system we've come up with for arriving at the truth. Unfortunately, it requires a bit of patience (weeks or maybe a few months).

toss1941 10y ago

And it's this kind of reporting that fuels the need for 'alternate facts' because the facts presented so often leave a lot to be desired.

colemickens 10y ago
So because the police refused to comment on felony charges and imprisonment of journalists and citizens... no one can report on anything... 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?