51–60 of 111 posts
Were they charged under HR 347 (passed in 2012), considering the Secret Service was probably in the vicinity? Edit: Oops I meant 347, not 374. Summary: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/summary Full text: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-...
The Life at Conception Act? Why would they be charged under that?
So this is what the NY Times know: - In a certain area, protest turned into riot - Cars were being set on fire - The police does a sweep, arresting 230 people - 6 of those 230 people were reporters And they chose to run a headline like this? They make it seem as if the journalists were targeted because of their profession, and that isn't what happened at all. What is this - Trump lies all the time, so as long as we a…
The NYT or the charged journalists never claimed that they were actually acting in a journalistic professional role during the riots.
"At least six journalists were charged with felony rioting after they were arrested while covering the violent protests that took place just blocks from President Trump’s inauguration parade in Washington on Friday, according to police reports and court documents." Literally the first sentence of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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?
.
If you think a submission is inappropriate for HN, please flag and move on.
I have no sympathy Im afraid. People who cheer to rob certain section of society gets to feel the burn in turn. Karma is a bitch as the saying goes. I just hope lessons have been learnt. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism The people are the ones who gave their blessing and made state powerful because state promised to share the loot with them. If only people have resisted the temptation ...
This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a conclusion.
I remember watching a journalist who'd been pepper sprayed by police wash his eyes with bottled water, just outside the restaurant we'd stopped at for lunch.
We live in troubling times.
[1]: https://goo.gl/photos/GfrxTZV4sADJqtgH7
[2]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822520102973095936
[3]: https://twitter.com/brndnmtthws/status/822530371841622017
This kind of reporting encourages people to form opinions before the facts are in. None of us know what really happened there, but it will probably get sorted out soon. By that time, it's too late because we've already jumped to a conclusion.
The administration's extreme anti-press behaviour for the past week (and the months prior to that) contribute far more to those opinions. The "facts" are official sentences such as "we will hold the press accountable", "news media should keep its mouth shut", Spicer lying to the press on day 0 and treating the media as hate objects, etc...
Link to arrests of journalists which took place before Trump was president: https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+metro+police+arrest+journ...
While Trump's views on the First Amendment are disturbing, these arrests do not seem related.
This is significant because in order to collect the story, journalists have to stand next to people doing illegal things. Since the journalist wouldn't be there otherwise, and is not a participant, if they are mistakenly charged, then the charges are dropped. Pretty straight application of freedom of the press. This is significant and will impact coverage of many many protests if it carries thru.
Do we know this is the case? Journalist and riot-participator are not mutually exclusive groups.