3 ms·

If I was arrested while livestreaming to Facebook I would be on their list of arrested journalists. Technically this means that a journalist was arrested in th

If I was arrested while livestreaming to Facebook I would be on their list of arrested journalists. Technically this means that a journalist was arrested in this situation, by their definition above: https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beat...

Miner49er 6y ago
So? It's still an attack on the 1st amendment. During the protests I was watching an aggregation of different livestreams on Twitch, many of them were streams on Facebook. Some of the journalists doing reporting on there likely only had a handful of viewers when they started getting streamed by the aggregator and then they had thousands of viewers. These types of journalists caught many of the instances of police brutality that happened during the protests and got video of things like the burning down of the 3rd Precinct in Minneapolis.
- NDizzle 6y ago
  What I'm hearing is that if I live stream myself performing a crime, and I'm arrested, I'm now a valid statistic for a journalist being arrested. Is that accurate? I strongly disagree with you, if so.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    This is such a strawman. I doubt you can find evidence of any of the arrested journalists actually getting convicted of a crime from their arrest, let alone a large percentage.
    - optimiz3 6y ago
      There's a difference between not getting prosecuted due to a lack of political will (i.e. in Seattle or Portland), and being innocent.
  - zug_zug 6y ago
    So you're conflating two things here If people are actively engaged in protest (e.g. carrying signs), I agree they are not "journalists." However, having viewers or not is irrelevant. Also, let's not pretend even credentialed journalists weren't assaulted and arrested by police.
    - NDizzle 6y ago
      zug_zug, these are the kind of journalists that are getting arrested "in record numbers(1)": https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1321971751648137216 https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1321971751648137216 If we really want to talk about journalists (and their sources) arrested and prosecuted, the discussion is probably about President Obama and his administration. Not so much 2020. (1) since 2017 - funny that their data cuts off right there, isn't it?!
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - FruityCoconut 6y ago
      If they're anything like the "journalists" we might see on Twitter, I have a hard time believing they're dignified people covering these events in a professional manner. I see a lot of hyperemotionality, hero-of-the-people complexes, and instigation of conflict and controversy among these types. I'm sure it is a significant boost to their cred to be arrested, especially under the current administration.
  - 8note 6y ago
    The faq you listed says they would not count you in that case
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Are you saying all the people in question were simultaneously committing crimes? Because otherwise your analogy makes no sense. Since, you know, you said you would be committing a crime. The real question is, is this an honest question - are you really asking what other people think, or, are you deliberately implying all the folks in question were somehow criminal?
pwinnski 6y ago
No, you wouldn't. From the section you quoted above: “While we recognize the importance and the rights of the private citizen who snaps a photo or video of an arrest, this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“
- NDizzle 6y ago
  "only cover individuals who self-identify" We can self-identify as anything, man. “If you will it, it is no dream.” and all that jazz. (Theodor Herzl)
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Now read the rest of the sentence. You supplied it once, and have had multiple opportunities to read it. Here, I'll give you another one: "...this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“ Your mind seems to be made up, based on your comments here, but I supply the context for others.

Miner49er 6y ago

So? It's still an attack on the 1st amendment. During the protests I was watching an aggregation of different livestreams on Twitch, many of them were streams on Facebook. Some of the journalists doing reporting on there likely only had a handful of viewers when they started getting streamed by the aggregator and then they had thousands of viewers. These types of journalists caught many of the instances of police brutality that happened during the protests and got video of things like the burning down of the 3rd Precinct in Minneapolis.

NDizzle 6y ago
What I'm hearing is that if I live stream myself performing a crime, and I'm arrested, I'm now a valid statistic for a journalist being arrested. Is that accurate? I strongly disagree with you, if so.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  This is such a strawman. I doubt you can find evidence of any of the arrested journalists actually getting convicted of a crime from their arrest, let alone a large percentage.
  - optimiz3 6y ago
    There's a difference between not getting prosecuted due to a lack of political will (i.e. in Seattle or Portland), and being innocent.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  So you're conflating two things here If people are actively engaged in protest (e.g. carrying signs), I agree they are not "journalists." However, having viewers or not is irrelevant. Also, let's not pretend even credentialed journalists weren't assaulted and arrested by police.
  - NDizzle 6y ago
    zug_zug, these are the kind of journalists that are getting arrested "in record numbers(1)": https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1321971751648137216 https://twitter.com/zerosum24/status/1321971751648137216 If we really want to talk about journalists (and their sources) arrested and prosecuted, the discussion is probably about President Obama and his administration. Not so much 2020. (1) since 2017 - funny that their data cuts off right there, isn't it?!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - FruityCoconut 6y ago
    If they're anything like the "journalists" we might see on Twitter, I have a hard time believing they're dignified people covering these events in a professional manner. I see a lot of hyperemotionality, hero-of-the-people complexes, and instigation of conflict and controversy among these types. I'm sure it is a significant boost to their cred to be arrested, especially under the current administration.
- 8note 6y ago
  The faq you listed says they would not count you in that case
- adamsea 6y ago
  Are you saying all the people in question were simultaneously committing crimes? Because otherwise your analogy makes no sense. Since, you know, you said you would be committing a crime. The real question is, is this an honest question - are you really asking what other people think, or, are you deliberately implying all the folks in question were somehow criminal?

pwinnski 6y ago

No, you wouldn't. From the section you quoted above: “While we recognize the importance and the rights of the private citizen who snaps a photo or video of an arrest, this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“

NDizzle 6y ago
"only cover individuals who self-identify" We can self-identify as anything, man. “If you will it, it is no dream.” and all that jazz. (Theodor Herzl)
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Now read the rest of the sentence. You supplied it once, and have had multiple opportunities to read it. Here, I'll give you another one: "...this site will only cover individuals who self-identify as journalists and have some track record of journalistic work.“ Your mind seems to be made up, based on your comments here, but I supply the context for others.