3 ms·

Was anyone suggesting it was a coincidence? It makes sense more journalists were arrested, but it's still notable.

• conductr 6y ago
  It’s also not like they have press cards in their hat or some press pass lanyard. They look like everyone else and are probably recording/photographing like everyone else. An arrest by itself doesn’t mean much in this context. But I assume they are released once they can be proven to be a journalist and no charges are brought.
  • jakelazaroff 6y ago
    That's not a particularly moving defense. There are no de jure rights afforded specifically to journalists (whatever your definition). And even if there were, the threat of arrest is still an intimidation tactic the police can use to subjugate civilians — journalist or not.
    • conductr 6y ago
      If you want to ignore the context I mentioned and make this a broad statement about policing in the US that’s fine but it’s also a completely different topic. Generally speaking, journalists are allowed to do their jobs and have a low risk of being arrested. They got caught up in the mix of the riots not dispersing as ordered, is my take. It’s not a trend or a bigger statement about the nations criminal justice system, no matter how flawed. This data shows nothing when context is applied.
• umvi 6y ago
  Well I went into the article (based on the title) thinking police all over the nation were randomly deciding to arrest journalists more often. But this makes it clear that no, it's only journalists at anti-police protests getting arrested at elevated rates. This article could very well have been titled "Record Breaking Number of Anti-Police Protests in U.S. This Year"