4 ms·

It's also bizarre because it's so stupid. Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protest

It's also bizarre because it's so stupid. Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters, it's pretty much all downhill from thereon in. Once the media has a narrative, politicians will start picking up on it for political capital, and then it's only a matter of time before low and mid-level police start getting thrown under the bus. I'd be interested to know to what extent it is that the police have simply internalized Trump's media antipathy. Perhaps the insane self-destructiveness of his time in office is leaking...

tw000001 6y ago
>bizarre because it's so stupid. Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters, it's pretty much all downhill from thereon in. Once the media has a narrative, politicians will start picking up on it for political capital, and then it's only a matter of time before low and mid-level police start getting thrown under the bus This was all going on from day one of the reportedly "peaceful" protests. I've watched multiple anchors on CNN and MSNBC discuss "peaceful" protests against backdrops of live rioting/burning/looting. The police need some degree of reformation but journalists chose a side at least as early as 2016. This is what happens when activist journalism is completely normalized. Police are humans too. You can only expect them to take so much targeted abuse before they target those who are amplifying threatening voices. What are the common refrain on every single stream after the sun goes down? "FUCK 12". People openly threatening to murder police. All night long. These are the people journalists are defending. These are the agitators that the police have to deal with. Where are news reports of protesters throwing rocks at riot police? Multiple incidents of people throwing artillery shells (fireworks) into police crowds? You shouldn't trust the media any more than you trust the current administration.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- craftinator 6y ago
  That's one reason I prefer live reporting and live streams to the highly curated content the news shared. The funny thing is, every single live stream I've seen (30+) features the police starting violence first. I discount the looters in this, cause thieves gonna thieve given the chance, but I haven't seen a rock thrown that wasn't in response to getting tear-gassed. Maybe cops are just used to absolute, unquestioned authority, or maybe they just have a high percentage of bullies and assholes, but after tens of hours of footage I've watched live, the cops use violence first. Which is a breach of our Constitutional right to protest. I personally swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all threats foreign or domestic, and breaching constitutional rights domestically makes these cops a perfect description of that threat.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/embed/Byk2axDVNHE https://www.youtube.com/embed/Byk2axDVNHE These are the people you are defending. > Where are news reports of protesters throwing rocks at riot police? Yes, where are they? After all, you have to have this from somewhere. And after seeing the above scenes, keep in mind that this isn't two soccer teams who both have the same job. The police's job is to uphold the law, citizens don't have a job as such. They don't get paid to not break the law, they pay for the apparatus that punishes them if they break it (and let's too many cops go free when they do). The cops are armed, they get paid, they have special privileges to prevent such things, not to use them to do them. Imagine a little child hitting an adult with all their force, and then the adult hitting back with all their force, and someone just saying "they're both being bad". Not that the cops are adults versus infants, but they do have levers and enjoy protections -- all paid for by the people they or their colleagues brutalize -- that multiply their force by many orders of magnitude.
thephyber 6y ago
I think it's the other way around: the police had that narrative before Trump and Trump picked up on it (and probably studied/learned of Nixon's strategy). The police and police wives in my family were already very cynical of journalists way back before Trump got roasted at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Every journo article that criticizes the work of an officer, a criminal case of the department, or any slight of the honor/reverence that Blue Liners have for the profession / individual LEOs is taken very seriously. The irony is that the journos can't publish accurate information without sources and police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate. In the end, you get a media outlet either echoing the statement of the PR department of the Police or you get an investigative reporter doing the actual "checks and balances" role of the media. I just think police culture (and the legal/employment restrictions placed on officers) can't be comfortable with freedom of the press.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate. That's not true at all. Media coverage of law enforcement matters is filled with quotes, anonymous and named, from the police community. That's not less true right now. There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press. Like anyone with an opinion, they're happy to do it for the most part.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    Yes and no. It's true that police officers and their families do have 1st Amendment protections, but they are also governed by employment law and can be castigated by brass, fellow officers if they cause ripples which screw up a case or department morale. > There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press. If you work for a company, were told that only the communications office was allowed to talk to the press about company business, the press asked you for a quote about something your company did, and you undermined the company's product/feature/initiative in a named quote, do you think your employer has the legal right to fire you for insubordination? If it's police wives, they probably aren't allowed to have the information by department policy, so the officer who passed on that information could (and should) receive a reprimand. With legal cases, police officers can't just go talking to press about a case because it could be used by the defense attorney to muddy the facts of the investigation or get some evidence thrown out.
KarlKemp 6y ago
> Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters You also don't beat journalists simply because you don't beat people not engaged in crimes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

tw000001 6y ago

>bizarre because it's so stupid. Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters, it's pretty much all downhill from thereon in. Once the media has a narrative, politicians will start picking up on it for political capital, and then it's only a matter of time before low and mid-level police start getting thrown under the bus This was all going on from day one of the reportedly "peaceful" protests. I've watched multiple anchors on CNN and MSNBC discuss "peaceful" protests against backdrops of live rioting/burning/looting. The police need some degree of reformation but journalists chose a side at least as early as 2016. This is what happens when activist journalism is completely normalized. Police are humans too. You can only expect them to take so much targeted abuse before they target those who are amplifying threatening voices. What are the common refrain on every single stream after the sun goes down? "FUCK 12". People openly threatening to murder police. All night long. These are the people journalists are defending. These are the agitators that the police have to deal with. Where are news reports of protesters throwing rocks at riot police? Multiple incidents of people throwing artillery shells (fireworks) into police crowds? You shouldn't trust the media any more than you trust the current administration.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
craftinator 6y ago
That's one reason I prefer live reporting and live streams to the highly curated content the news shared. The funny thing is, every single live stream I've seen (30+) features the police starting violence first. I discount the looters in this, cause thieves gonna thieve given the chance, but I haven't seen a rock thrown that wasn't in response to getting tear-gassed. Maybe cops are just used to absolute, unquestioned authority, or maybe they just have a high percentage of bullies and assholes, but after tens of hours of footage I've watched live, the cops use violence first. Which is a breach of our Constitutional right to protest. I personally swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all threats foreign or domestic, and breaching constitutional rights domestically makes these cops a perfect description of that threat.
mellow2020 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Byk2axDVNHE https://www.youtube.com/embed/Byk2axDVNHE These are the people you are defending. > Where are news reports of protesters throwing rocks at riot police? Yes, where are they? After all, you have to have this from somewhere. And after seeing the above scenes, keep in mind that this isn't two soccer teams who both have the same job. The police's job is to uphold the law, citizens don't have a job as such. They don't get paid to not break the law, they pay for the apparatus that punishes them if they break it (and let's too many cops go free when they do). The cops are armed, they get paid, they have special privileges to prevent such things, not to use them to do them. Imagine a little child hitting an adult with all their force, and then the adult hitting back with all their force, and someone just saying "they're both being bad". Not that the cops are adults versus infants, but they do have levers and enjoy protections -- all paid for by the people they or their colleagues brutalize -- that multiply their force by many orders of magnitude.

thephyber 6y ago

I think it's the other way around: the police had that narrative before Trump and Trump picked up on it (and probably studied/learned of Nixon's strategy). The police and police wives in my family were already very cynical of journalists way back before Trump got roasted at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Every journo article that criticizes the work of an officer, a criminal case of the department, or any slight of the honor/reverence that Blue Liners have for the profession / individual LEOs is taken very seriously. The irony is that the journos can't publish accurate information without sources and police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate. In the end, you get a media outlet either echoing the statement of the PR department of the Police or you get an investigative reporter doing the actual "checks and balances" role of the media. I just think police culture (and the legal/employment restrictions placed on officers) can't be comfortable with freedom of the press.

newacct583 6y ago
> police and their families don't/won't/can't be sources which would make their stories more accurate. That's not true at all. Media coverage of law enforcement matters is filled with quotes, anonymous and named, from the police community. That's not less true right now. There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press. Like anyone with an opinion, they're happy to do it for the most part.
- thephyber 6y ago
  Yes and no. It's true that police officers and their families do have 1st Amendment protections, but they are also governed by employment law and can be castigated by brass, fellow officers if they cause ripples which screw up a case or department morale. > There's nothing stopping these people from talking to the press. If you work for a company, were told that only the communications office was allowed to talk to the press about company business, the press asked you for a quote about something your company did, and you undermined the company's product/feature/initiative in a named quote, do you think your employer has the legal right to fire you for insubordination? If it's police wives, they probably aren't allowed to have the information by department policy, so the officer who passed on that information could (and should) receive a reprimand. With legal cases, police officers can't just go talking to press about a case because it could be used by the defense attorney to muddy the facts of the investigation or get some evidence thrown out.

KarlKemp 6y ago

> Normally, police don't beat journalists because they're conscious that if you force the media to side with the protesters You also don't beat journalists simply because you don't beat people not engaged in crimes.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]