Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 325 posts

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#111

Post by vidarh »

z9e wrote: post #76
sneak wrote: post #32

It makes me sad that an institution I used to like and respect, reason.com, seems more and more often to subscribe to the standard (and, taken uncritically, untrue) set pieces of the standard American culture war. This one, in particular, that “antifa is a violent mob that is super hypocritical”, and also aliasing “antifa” and “blm” as coterminous. The truth is very different, but I fear that many in their libertaria…

How is reason.com being authoritarian here? How is antifa intimidating and attacking political dissenters not closer to a truer authoritarian accusation? I’m not sure where the “antifa is not violent” gaslighting is stemming from, but there’s a tremendous amount of YouTube footage that anyone can objectively discern from what a violent group of people looks like. The violence is not just them, it’s also right wing ag…

The first problem is when people try to treat antifa as an organization rather than as a loose ideology that is supported by groups across a wide spectrum, and then tries to use that to assign guilt by correlation.

E.g. the original antifa was set up by the KPD (pre-war German communist party), but many modern antifa groups use logos that incorporates symbols that were used by the SPD to explicitly attack the KPD and Hitler (and Papen; who eventually demonstrated how dangerous he was by being the person who brought Hitler to power) who they saw as just as authoritarian as Hitler (with good reason - KPD were Stalinists). E.g. you might recognise the 3 arrows from this poster [1].

You'll find antifa groups coming out of groups with political ideologies that are close to mortal enemies. The only things they have in common is opposition to fascism and some general symbolism.

[1] https://antifacwb.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ka003265.jpg?w...

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#112

Post by bnralt »

formercoder wrote: post #40
zaroth wrote: post #19

The mainstream news reporting on Portland (and other regional rioting) got to the point where they were bald-faced lying about peaceful protests standing in front of burning buildings. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that these professional journalists think that their readers can’t understand a nuanced world of gray and need everything reduced to black and white. There can be a concept of “BLM”…

I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. It’s all our team or their team based on whatever news channel they subscribe to. No one takes time to dig below the surface and think for themselves.

It's unsettling. It seems like there is an increasing number of people who simply adopt the narrative for their team, and assume all others do the same. Anyone who disagrees with that narrative must be a member of the opposite team. If presented with evidence that goes against their narrative, the response is usually that it doesn't matter. If they completely flip to the opposite position on an issue, the response is often that both their earlier position was correct and that their new position is also correct.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#113

Post by coldpie »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #103
zaroth wrote: post #19

The mainstream news reporting on Portland (and other regional rioting) got to the point where they were bald-faced lying about peaceful protests standing in front of burning buildings. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that these professional journalists think that their readers can’t understand a nuanced world of gray and need everything reduced to black and white. There can be a concept of “BLM”…

I have also seen little reporting on what I suspect (admittedly, merely judging from photos) has driven a lot of the more confrontational protesting in Portland: youthful energy and enthusiasm that doesn’t actually think that much about theory or aims. Press coverage and the attacks of ideological opponents depict these protestors as a focused political force that knows exactly what it seeks and why it is doing the s…

There are well articulated lists of demands from leaders of the movements. Not everyone in the gatherings needs to be super well-versed in the policy details to support them. Here are some examples:

More modest: https://8cantwait.org/

Larger scale: https://www.tenforjustice.com/demands

You can probably find more local information from your local BLM or other social justice organizations. Here is a specific example from where I live, the Twin Cities: https://www.reclaimtheblock.org/home

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#114

Post by Spooky23 »

unishark wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops have plenty of ways of going after people who haven’t committed crimes. https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...

In other words, protestors are harassing, assaulting, and robbing reporters because they might otherwise be unjustly framed for minor crimes.

Protestors are people and unlike most places Portland is still active months later.

I would imagine there’s a core cadre of organizers who are no longer able to hide in the crowd, now that things are less spontaneous. Those folks are going to try to protect themselves.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#115

Post by microtonal »

the-dude wrote: post #37
zaroth wrote: post #19

The mainstream news reporting on Portland (and other regional rioting) got to the point where they were bald-faced lying about peaceful protests standing in front of burning buildings. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that these professional journalists think that their readers can’t understand a nuanced world of gray and need everything reduced to black and white. There can be a concept of “BLM”…

In my experience from the Dutch press, they are all very left leaning. Especially our public broadcasters. There is hardly any right leaning press in The Netherlands.

Wait, what? The largest newspaper (Telegraaf) is definitely right wing. The second largest newspaper (AD) is also anything but left wing.

I agree with public broadcasting, but that’s in part because the right wing has changed. Traditionally, the right-wing stronghold was the conservative christian block. Which had their political party and broadcasting associations. But these broadcasters have changed their direction after Christianity pretty much collapsed and became a minority religion in The Netherlands. However in recent years WNL and PowNed have been added as right-wing broadcasters.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#116

Post by prepend »

youareostriches wrote: post #28
tomohawk wrote: post #16

Happened to a reporter on the Key bridge in DC. https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1300857489559375877 EDIT: apparently "You're not allowed to Post" also applies

The Daily Caller has been managed by Tucker Carlson, who attacks protesters on the air virtually every day. The Daily Caller is known for right-wing troll articles. There’s no chance in hell that this publication would ever portray protesters favorably.

Do you think the Daily Caller shouldn’t be allowed to film and report?

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#117

Post by aww_dang »

jpxw wrote: post #53
snsr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling anyone from the Daily Caller a “reporter” is charitable at best.

Whether or not you think they’re “reporters” is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to film.

Agreed. This is illustrative of the point expressed in the article. Upthread there is a comment observing a similar incident that happened to a Washington Post reporter.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#118

Post by cochne »

I am surprised to see this on the front page of Hacker News. The article makes claims which are completely unsubstantiated. There is no audio/video evidence, and there is no other source (that I could find) corroborating the story, or even mentioning these phrases. From another comment here: https://twitter.com/alex_zee/status/1302284883625046016?s=21 IPC does not exist either.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#119

Post by cwhiz »

Anderkent wrote: post #97
cwhiz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s some absurd hyperbole. Death? These people are scared of going to jail. They know they are breaking the law and they know if they get caught they could go to jail.

Right, no one ever died from being arrested by the police.

Some do. About as many unarmed people are killed by police as people are killed by furniture.

Re: 'You're Not Allowed to Film': The Fight to Control Who Reports from Portland

#120

Post by zaroth »

bananaface wrote: post #44
zaroth wrote: post #19

The mainstream news reporting on Portland (and other regional rioting) got to the point where they were bald-faced lying about peaceful protests standing in front of burning buildings. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that these professional journalists think that their readers can’t understand a nuanced world of gray and need everything reduced to black and white. There can be a concept of “BLM”…

Egregious contradictions that enrage a significant segment of the population (especially those outside your normal readership) get your story shared approximately a gazillion times. E.g. the stories you saw were the ones that were egregious. A given story might be propaganda but a lot of this stuff is just a marketing strategy.

If the content is the marketing then it ceases to be journalism. Yes, this is probably stating the obvious.

In this case then, we’ve lost something important. What we got to replace it seems to me like it’s actively hostile to a peaceful republic.

I’s like to think that just as much as part of our brain turns on for the click bait, another part equally yearns for a source of truth, or as close to it as our meager egos can allow for.

Post reply on HN