3 ms·

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

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.
  - curiousgeorgio 10y ago
    > The accused have denied participation and "organizations dedicated to press freedom" (are they experts?) have denounced the charges 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.
- kaspiCZ 10y ago
  > - Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained 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
jeffdavis 10y ago
What's so bad about waiting until March?

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.
- curiousgeorgio 10y ago
  > The accused have denied participation and "organizations dedicated to press freedom" (are they experts?) have denounced the charges 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.
kaspiCZ 10y ago
> - Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained 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

jeffdavis 10y ago

What's so bad about waiting until March?