> - Interview people who were there about what the journalists were actually doing and what happened when they were detained

Agreed

> - Mention the political background of the reporters and/or any history of participating in protests

That is (or should be) irrelevant unless you want to support a story. We do not know if they were actively involved.

If you say they were Democrats, some people can conclude they provoked it. Others may think it's the Republicans attacking innocent journalists.

Same with being active in the past. How does that tell anything about this case without creating bias.

What if I was active in environmental protests, but I just cover politics as a job?

> - Explore legal precedents and ask experts to help explain why they may have been arrested

You would need to ask the policemen. Not the "grunts", the ones who gave the order. They should know why they gave it. But they declined to comment. So the answer of any expert might be "if they were detained, they probably did something wrong".

> - At least mention the fact that if we don't know all the facts, we can't assume they were wrongfully charged

I believe we should conclude "they were brought in and it could be for a number of reasons:

a) they broke the law b) they refused to cooperate c) they didn't to the best of their ability prevent someone from breaking the law (I don't know if this concept applies in USA, I'm from Czech Republic) - that includes even just calling a cop d) they were scooped up to sort out later (determine their contribution or provide testimony) e) it was a mistake"

I tend to sound forceful, but I'm not ill willed. I'm trying to raise some points that I think do or don't bring value to reporting on this issue.

Thanks