Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
from the not-so-free-press dept
We’re in something of an era of firsts here in America. We have our first billionaire President, for instance. Add to that that, on his first day as President Elect, Donald Trump saw fit to take to Twitter to take aim at the First Amendment. Fears for what a Trump presidency means for the rights of the press and for free speech rights have compounded since then, supercharged by Trump himself, who has constructed a narrative in which the press is his foil, either because he truly believes that’s the case or out of pure political expediency. Whichever the case, we had another first as on the very day of Trump’s inauguration, his first day officially as President of the United States, police managed to arrest and charge six journalists for the crime of covering the protests coinciding with the ceremony.
There had already been reports of two such arrests, but we now learn of four more.
A documentary producer, a photojournalist, a live-streamer and a freelance reporter were each charged with the most serious level of offense under Washington DC’s law against rioting, after being caught up in the police action against demonstrators.
The Guardian learned of their arrests after reporting on Monday that the journalists Evan Engel of Vocativ and Alex Rubinstein of RT America had also been arrested and charged with felonies while covering the same unrest on Friday morning.
Six arrests, six journalists charged, and six arraignments and releases pending future hearings in the coming months. The arrest reports for each are remarkably free of any detail on specific actions these individuals are to have undertaken which would violate the law.
None of the arrest reports for the six journalists makes any specific allegations about what any of them are supposed to have done wrong. Keller’s report, which also covers the arrests of an unknown number of unidentified other people, includes a note that a police vehicle was vandalized. “I had absolutely nothing to do with the vandalism,” said Keller.
Reports on the arrests of five of the six journalists contain identical language alleging that “numerous crimes were occurring in police presence”. They state that windows were broken, fires were lit and vehicles were damaged. “The crowd was observed enticing a riot by organizing, promoting, encouraging and participating in acts of violence in furtherance of the riot,” the police reports said.
One of the privileges of American law is typically that it avoids levying legal responsibility on one individual for the actions of others. There’s little sense generally in pointing at a crowd of people, a percentage of which are engaging in unlawful behavior, and tossing a legal net over them all. There’s even less sense in this when the net catches members of the press, who the public relies on for reporting on newsworthy events. And there’s even less sense still when the reporting is on a political matter.
Now, it’s not as though it was only upon President Trump’s inauguration that journalists were suddenly being arrested while performing their jobs. It happened on several occasions under Barrack Obama, beacon of transparency and press access though he claimed to be. Instead, this is something of a continuation of an attack on a free and open press, buttressed by a President engaged in open warfare with any press outlets he doesn’t find favorable.
The signals have been sent since before his inauguration and since: access and information is going to be cut off. In response, several press outlets have announced investments into their investigative reporting teams. If the arrest of those journalists covering their stories continues to be accepted, that doesn’t leave the public with much of a press at all.
Filed Under: arrested, donald trump, free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, protests, reporters, riots, washington dc
Comments on “Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests”
You people have no clue what shit youve got coming! You think that the Obama govt did whatbit could to remove peoples rights? Yhat was just a foretaste. The USA is turning into the very thing it fought agsinst in the 39-45 war!
Re: Re:
The U.S.A. never fought against fascism. They fought against Germany trying to conquer the world, never mind the ideology.
Read up on a few things Henry Ford published in the 20s. Nobody liked the jews and everybody was gungho about nationalism and state power. U.S.A., Europe, Russia would have been satisfied with the state of the things as long as the Germans were not forcing their “Heil Hitler” on everybody else.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a very broad brush of historical revisionism/reductionism. Sure, some people were okay with fascism, but not all or even most of them. “Read up” indeed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s not that everyone in the USA was OK with fascism, and that may have motivated some towards war.
But I think David’s account of history fits better with the actual events. The US did not move on Hitler when he brought fascism and racism to his own country…but sovereignty would restrain us. However, once he marched on the Sudetenland, then Poland, the USA could have reacted, but didn’t.
Canada and other commonwealth countries entered after the UK did with the sinking of the Lusitania. It wasn’t until this act of aggression that the Brits got invested.
But the USA? We didn’t do squat until Pearl Harbor. Our motivator was not the fight against fascism. It was the defense against attackers, and to stop the growth of an enemy axis and empire.
Re: Re: Re:2 We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor.
There is the (unproven) suggestion that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were about to attack, but deliberately let it happen to provide the excuse to enter the war.
Have you read A Man Called Intrepid? It’s about Canadian-born Sir William Stephenson, who was the covert go-between working with both Roosevelt and Churchill, coordinating the aid provided by the former to the latter, and conspiring with them to bring the US into the war. The US Ambassador to the UK, Joseph Kennedy, had basically written off the Brits, saying it was only a matter of time before they were conquered by Germany. So his own boss was working around him, rather than through him.
Re: Re: Re:3 We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor.
Meh. Maybe so. Important allegations, too, but I’m unlikely to ever know the truth.
But irrelevant to the alleged scheming, the majority of the USA, its gov’t, and its citizens were motivated to join in a perilous war only after Pearl Harbor.
Even if true, your point simply argues that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor would motivate the nation. Which is what I argue motivated the nation.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The sinking of the Lusitania was what bought the US into WW1, not WW2. It happened in 1915, the UK was already at war. I think you’re confusing your wars somewhat here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah. Busted on that. Shouldn’t rely on my memory too much.
That said, it was a tangent, and the focus is the US entering WW2 after Pearl Harbor.
Obviously, the RT arrest was a plant to distance Russia from the Elections. Right?
enticing a riot
C’mon baby. If you riot for me, i’ll riot for you. [/sexy wink]
Ferguson was a test run?
Google “ferguson journalists arrested”
Re: Ferguson was a test run?
Don’t worry, they won’t Google anything. They will also ignore that Obama went after an AP reporter. Willful ignorance runs rampant here.
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
Deflection is the act of a coward, oh wait you are one.
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
Shhhh the adults are talking about Trump, do try to keep up.
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
Fascism is OK because someone you don’t like did something superficially similar. Got it.
Re: Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
The word you’re all looking for is “authoritarianism.”
Obama was authoritarian, so is Trump.
Partisan pattycake tends to distract us from those truths.
In all fairness, I am fairly certain that the DC police do NOT report to POTUS. They report to DC government which is almost 100% Democrat.
So who again are the bad guys?
Re: Re:
Such simplistic logic will certainly be sufficient to get you through life if your goals are low hanging fruit, otherwise you will need to step up your game.
Re: Re: Re:
Attacking the messenger is ALWAYS better than presenting facts. So much for logic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yea, they do that a lot here. Speaking of liberal run cities, if you subtract out the top 4 violent cities, all liberal run, the US is way down the list for gun violence. Those cities, like Chicago, have strict gun laws as well which is supposed to stop crime somehow.
Re: Re: Re:2 Think of the Kids
Gun Laws Reduce Gun Related Crime,
Piss-Weak Gun Law Scenario
— So instead of Domestic Violence where Victims are Shot Dead, the Abusive Spouse Gaoled, Children Raised As State Wards, And The Likely-hood High of State Services Axed To Give a tax-break to Big Business (including Shareholders of Gun-Making Concerns).
We try to Get A better outcome for kids
Effective Gun Law Scenario
— Domestic Violence Victims that are Bashed, the Abusive Spouse Gaoled, Court orders on Abusive Spouse Preventing Interaction With the Family they Betrayed, Domestic Violence Victims that Recover, Children Raised By a Concerned Parent. Less Chance For State Services Children need Axed because Concerned Parent is of Voting age.
Re: Re: Re:3 Think of the Kids
You said a whole lot and I have not idea what any of it means.
The point was, gun laws don’t get rid of guns like prohibition didn’t get rid of alcohol and drug laws haven’t even come close to getting rid of drugs. What gun laws do is prevent honest people from having them allowing criminals to run rampant WITH them.
When someone can tell me how making them illegal will actually get rid of them, I might consider supporting gun laws. Since history and the present state of the drug war show otherwise, I think I will only be hearing crickets.
Re: Re: Re:4 Think of the Kids
You said a whole lot and I have not idea what any of it means.
— so you didn’t learn critical thinking at school
The point was, gun laws don’t get rid of guns like prohibition didn’t get rid of alcohol and drug laws haven’t even come close to getting rid of drugs.
— Gun — product of an industrial Culture, quality tools, refined chemicals
— alcohol — product of a still in the back shed, some stuff from the veggie patch
— drugs — plant stuff in the back yard and watch it grow.
What gun laws do is prevent honest people from having them
— see you agree with me that Gun laws will disrupt supply of guns
(unfortunately we will deprive Gun Makers of their markets)
allowing criminals to run rampant WITH them.
— Crooks can always get access to firearms. with or with-out Gun-Laws
when someone can tell me how making them illegal
— Who Said that you needed to make guns illegal
will actually get rid of them, I might consider supporting gun laws. Since history and the present state of the drug war show otherwise,
— But curtailing the introduction of more guns into the community, Will raise their Price
— Limiting the sources of Ammo will raise the Price,
— Rational People with Guns Will consider each use of a gun
— I expect Honest People will keep their guns in the gun safe at home.
— I expect Organized Crooks to have turf wars, intimidation, police problems.
— I expect Police will be well equipped with modern firearms.
— irrational People won’t be able to look after their guns
— Mentally Ill, you can’t hold on to money long enough to by a Gun.
— Crazy Crooks, those dogs will be destroyed. — see rational people
I think I will only be hearing crickets.
— sorry to hear you have tinnitus
Re: Re: Re:5 Think of the Kids
None of that makes sense. Guns and ammo are expensive and criminals have them anyway. They steal them or the buy them with drug money.
Re: Re: Re:6 Think of the Kids
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah – and those that attempt to change the subject drop by every once in a while to leave a few droppings of their scat, marking their territory or some such thing.
Re: Re:
Politicians.
HA HA HA… TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!! ROFL!!!
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
While it’s true that Washington DC does not have any representation in the Senate and only one representative in the House (who has only limited voting rights), they do get to vote on the President thanks to the 23rd Amendment which gives them three electoral votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Re: Re: Re:
DC code § 1–204.21(a) says:
“(a) There is established the Office of Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the Mayor shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District.”
https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/1/chapters/2/subchapters/IV/parts/B/
DC code § 5–105.01(a) says:
“The Mayor of said District shall appoint to office, assign to such duty or duties as he may prescribe, and promote all officers and members of said Metropolitan Police force…”
DC code § 5–105.01(a-1)(1) says:
“The Mayor shall appoint the Chief of Police, with the advice and consent of the Council, pursuant to § 1-523.01(a).”
https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/5-105.01.html
The police chief is appointed by the Mayor, who is elected by the people of the District. In other words, you’re just flat-out wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is wrong here? Some sound quite positive.
Is DC a city, a state or something else entirely?
I don’t know, but why not compare it to a city anyway. Any objections?
If DC were more like a state .. oh wait – US congre$$ control$ it, there is no DC congress, and the DC mayor has limited authority compared to mayors across the planet.
If DC were more like a city then the mayor would have control over the budget, wield taxation powers and have a wealth of other responsibilities.
One more thing, just because you have the authority to appoint a police chief does not mean that you are a mayor.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Perhaps, but I have shown that he DOES have the authority (with the consent of the also-locally-elected city council) to appoint the police chief and, in fact, ALL members of the DC police. I’m not sure why you’re talking about taxes when we’re talking about police conduct. And anyway, in my state, the state doesn’t allow cities to raise their taxes beyond a certain amount, so a city not having complete budget control isn’t unique to DC. (Mayors, as executive branch members, wouldn’t control their own budget anyway – at best they can propose a budget for approval by the city council and have veto power, subject to override by the council.)
The DC code clearly calls him a mayor. But regardless of what you call him, the point is that he is (1) locally elected, and (2) has authority over the police. And since the point of this article is the actions of the police, this does seem relevant to the original post in this thread, which said:
which someone then contested, and then I said that no, the original poster was correct. Which is more important in this context: who has taxation powers, or who has the authority to "appoint to office, assign to such duty or duties as he may prescribe, and promote all officers and members of said Metropolitan Police force"?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The DC government controlled by Congress, which is not “almost 100% Democrat”. DC is not some kind of kingdom ruled by one “almost 100% Democrat” mayor. Get over it.
Re: Re:
Umm, no, it isn’t. It’s Republican.
Nice try.
Re: Re: Re:
DC Police report to the Mayor of DC — Democrat.
Nice try.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
DC has had a Democratic mayor continuously ever since it started having a mayor in 1975. Its city council currently consists of 11 Democrats and 2 Independents (one of whom is a former Democrat, and if you read the other one’s Wikipedia article you certainly wouldn’t mistake him for a Republican.)
Yes, technically the currently-Republican Congress has the constitutional ability to overrule the mayor and city council, but I don’t get the feeling that this is a regular occurrence.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t get the feeling that this is a regular occurrence.”
You do not get “the feeling”?
Wow, if that is not convincing then I do not know what is.
You live there? Maybe have relatives there? You read a book about the place? What makes your “feeling” worth any more than that old song they used to play?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
OK. You show me where Congress overrode the city council to order the police to arrest inauguration protesters, and I will apologize. I won’t hold my breath.
Re: TechDirt Silliness
Exactly. This idea that the president is responsible for the actions of local cops is ridiculous. I don’t understand where TechDirt authors get this stuff.
Obama wasn’t responsible for the cops who arrested journalists in Missouri and Trump isn’t responsible for the cops who arrested journalists in DC. Not only is the president not responsible, the president has no legal authority over local police. They don’t report to him.
Re: Re: TechDirt Silliness
Da Prez could talk to the DOJ encouraging them to investigate local police regarding alleged .. ummm .. shall we call it “short sightedness”?
The fed has some leverage wrt the laws of the land. It could be that abuse of power falls within their purview.
Re: Re: TechDirt Silliness
He doesn’t appear to have done a lot to restrain the increasing militarism of the police. I don’t believe he even addressed it as a problem worth tackling.
If this becomes a national story,
I’m sure there will be many more who insist on being arrested to draw attention to themselves.
I saw a picture of the chaos and mayhem, which was a journalist taking pictures of twenty other journalists taking pictures of a trash can that was burning, because some other journalist set it on fire to make a story.
Every propaganda house in the U.S. is running this leave it to beaver protest bullshit as a real thing. Really it is a bunch of art and history majors flapping their gums because they can’t find jobs. (go figure) And a few journalism majors selling advertising by trying to get those dumbass’s arrested, because it will be more dramatic.
This is reality T.V. Not a protest. What they got locked up for, was not filing the appropriate permits for shooting a film about what a bunch of flaming fucktard propagadists modern journalists are.
I have no problem with that.
Re: If this becomes a national story,
Thank you for going in there and figuring out the background on all the protesters and unveiling all this as a sham. After all, what can art and history and journalism majors contribute to the world.
I wonder what area of studies you approve of at protests?
Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
Reminds me of an anecdote I heard from the protests.
At one of the protests, a Trump supporter shouted at a protestor something along the lines of “Go home! You’re only here because you don’t have a job!” To which another passing protestor shouted, “Hey lady! You know it’s Saturday, right?”
Re: If this becomes a national story,
I saw a picture of the chaos and mayhem, which was a journalist taking pictures of twenty other journalists taking pictures of a trash can that was burning, because some other journalist set it on fire to make a story.
Yet, I suspect that a link to said picture is anything but forthcoming.
And I’m sure you also saw the lead up where the original journalist set it on fire to begin with.
This is reality T.V. Not a protest. What they got locked up for, was not filing the appropriate permits for shooting a film about what a bunch of flaming fucktard propagadists modern journalists are.
And I’m sure you gleaned this right from the police reports.
There’s drugs to quiet those voices in your head, you know.
Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
“Yet, I suspect that a link to said picture is anything but forthcoming.”
A quick googling for “inauguration trashcan fire journalists” returns this https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/20/searching-metaphor-reporters-flock-burning-dc-garbage-can/ which just happens to have the pic he was referring to.
Perhaps you should reign in your smarm.
Re: Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
reign in your smarm
i think herr trump plans to reign in his.
Re: Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
At some point protesters are going to realize that if they want to get their message out, the only way to do it in such a sea of douchebaggery, is to jump into a crowd like the one in that photo, and hand out some beatings.
A national fucking hero would be born.
If they won’t improve the national dialog by being engaging and truthful, maybe they can improve the national dialog by at least bringing the subject up. Even if it is only by whining like a bitch about getting punched in the face.
Re: Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
Perhaps you should reign in your smarm.
Where in the photo is the journalist setting fire to it?
Ain’t seeing it.
That’s the bolded part of the bullshit claim the OP made.
And it’s still bullshit despite the picture.
My smarm stays where it is.
“for the crime of covering the protests coinciding with the ceremony.”
Is that all they were doing? Do we have any evidence at all that they were engaged, or not engaged, in the acts that they are accused of?
Per the attached link;
“They state that windows were broken, fires were lit and vehicles were damaged.”
Were the Journalists in the middle of this stirring it up and egging on the protestors? Were they themselves witnessed breaking windows and lighting fires? Do police reports typically have detailed information on the arrests, or are they just a general outline of the law breaking and they are required to submit more detailed reports at a later date?
I feel like the police are not giving us much data, and as a result were going straight to “bash the Police and Trump mode” before we fully understand what’s happened.
I did some additional research. It appears the Journalists were right in the middle of things. If the crowd got out of control, I could see where they could be caught up in the middle of it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html?_r=0
If they were enticing, or participating, then your damn right they needed to be arrested. If not, then the police need to be held accountable. This will be interesting to watch as the evidence is presented.
I know this won’t be a popular opinion around here; But this story smacks a bit of “lets pile on Trump”. I think I’ll reserve my judgement until the facts are presented.
Re: "Let's pile on Trump"
It’s not that we’re blaming the new administration, it’s that the police state is already here, and it’s common practice in law enforcement to wrangle journalists, or intimidate them or even arrest them — on dubious charges if need be — as a means of discouraging them.
Trump isn’t to blame for this development in culture, but we’re pretty sure he’s not going to do anything to reverse it. If anything, he’s looking to further empower police to have greater authority, and he would like to call a hunt against reporters.
Trump has already declared as much, in that he seldom refers to news media without invective.
They did the same thing with Amy Goodman covering the Dakota Pipeline protests. This will be the new norm.
USA! USA! USA!
Re: Re:
USA starts with US and ends with SA.
There’s a police tactic called Kettling.
Basically you cordon off an area and use a line of riot cops to force the protest into it. Anywhere the protesters go there are cops waiting there’s no exit to the cordoned area. Then the second someone in the crowd throws a rock you arrest everyone within several blocks and charge them all with rioting.
Trump want even in charge yet
You liberals are so full of FUD it is amazing you don’t sleep under your beds. Happened under Obama as you admit so this is a pure attack piece. Talk about fake news.
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
yup, sure is … you fell better now?
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
you forgot the obligatory “Sad!” comment there Don. 🙂
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
You liberals are so full of FUD it is amazing you don’t sleep under your beds.
Huh? I thought it was you guys sleeping in your closets desperately clinging to your guns that Obama was going to come for?
Wasn’t there also supposed to be martial law or something so Obama could stay in power forever?
You won. Get used to it. You’re going to have to come on here every day for the next 4 years and whine like a bitch.
Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
Oh we are used to winning,..and winning…and winning.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
Obama’s greatest accomplishment was building a strong Republican party.
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
But not the popular vote or the largest inaugural audience.
Those you lost to a lying woman and a Kenyan Muslim.
Congratulations!
Re: Re: Re:2 Trump want even in charge yet
Wow, like the popular vote matters. You guys should really learn how elections work in the US; maybe that is why you keep losing?
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
We have received a mandate – hahahahahahaha
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
It seems to matter to Trump.
Alot.
But go ahead and overlook that while talking about your “mandate.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Trump want even in charge yet
“So what if they won the most games? My team got more runs overall, so we’re the real winners of the World Series!”
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
It matters to Trump, despite it "not mattering" – just ask him.
So it must be important if the POTUS is burning CPU cycles thinking about it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Trump want even in charge yet
There’s no “winning” or “losing” the popular vote in the American political system, since there is no contest for the popular vote.
In other words, you can’t win or lose a game that isn’t even being played.
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
I believe that whenever the popular vote is brought up, it’s to remind you that Trump did not get a mandate from the people. More people voted for Clinton, it’s just that the way your system is set up, 3 million of those votes didn’t count toward the victory.
That’s fine, and if those are the rules so be it. But, don’t pretend that you have a mandate, that Trump has the favour of a majority of the nation or that a majority voted for him.
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
In other words, you can’t win or lose a game that isn’t even being played.
Can you tweet this to president Trump, so he can just get over it and move on? He’s the one constantly bringing it up.
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
“Your hate has made you powerful.”
Obama didn’t do that. Racism, rabid conservatism, neoreactionaryism, fascism, fake news, and bullshit talking points made the Republicans strong. Just because the neoreactionaries all hate the same person doesn’t mean that person caused their unity or even their hate.
Re: Re: Re:2 Trump want even in charge yet
You still don’t understand why you are losing. Name calling and lying are a very big part of it. Crying wolf is not working anymore. You will need to come to the table ready to talk ideas and policy if you want to keep a seat at the table.
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
Yeah, you should change teams, go join those other guys who do not lie, name call, crying wol…. oh wait a second
Re: Re: Re:3 Trump want even in charge yet
You still don’t understand why you are losing.
And despite your concern, the press is focusing on (wait for it) Trump, and all his daily fuck ups.
And they’re going to continue doing it.
But go ahead, keep focusing on why we lost. It seems to matter to you a lot. More so than the abysmal inauguration crowds, loss of the popular vote, the fact that Mexico isn’t paying for the wall now (took him less than a week to bail on that horseshit), you have no plan to replace Obamacare (despite trying to repeal it for nearly 7 years), etc.
I could go on and on and on.
But tell me more why we lost. Nothing else to talk about?
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
That’s almost a nice deflection.
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
Huh, you’re correct. The linked article specifically says Friday MORNING. Trump had been president for a negative amount of time at that point.
One last minute hurrah for Obama’s shitting upon the constitution, I guess.
I freely grant that I don’t expect better from Trump in the years to come, but this is definitely part of the usual Trump bashing by trying to conflate other’s actions with his.
So...
We are losing more freedoms with every administration?
yea, totally didn’t see this one coming.
Meanwhile the reps and dems still go at each others necks like good little puppets because neither give an actual shit about liberty until its their turn at the gallows.
Good luck TD, this place is already too close to an echo chamber as it is.
I hate the guy as much as anybody else, but linking this to Trump is just stupid. Journalists have been arrested in the vicinity of protests for all time; this is not unprecedented.
Ferguson and Dakota Access during Obama’s tenure. A Tucson Citizen photographer and probably plenty more at anti-war protests during Bush’s. That took all of one google search. You’re better than this, Timothy.
Re: Re:
It does seem like there is a pile on going on. I hope the authors aren’t feeding the Trump haters just to get comments.
Re: Re: Re:
…you…seem to be operating on the premise that angry comments from Trump supporters are a thing that anybody actually wants.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven’t seen a bunch of “angry comments from Trump supporters”. I’ve seen a few sure, but the bulk of the comments are bashing him from what I see. You disagree?
Re: Re:
Second-to-last paragraph of the article:
Re: Re: Re:
I read that. But it’s a little diluted by the first paragraph of Trump bashing don’t you think? He mentions trump what, 4 times, and his presidency at least twice in just the first paragraph? Then adds this in at the second to the last paragraph like a disclaimer? By the time I to the second to last paragraph, I was already armed with torch and pitchfork…. /s
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it’s a little diluted by the first paragraph of Trump bashing don’t you think? He mentions trump what, 4 times, and his presidency at least twice in just the first paragraph?
Well, it was related to Trump’s inauguration.
Perhaps a mention of Hillary’s emails would’ve made you feel better?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Obvious Troll is Trolling…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’re the one counting Trumps.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
… and I just read that many of Trump cabinet are using personal email accounts
they dont even try to hide it anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly which part of that opening paragraph did you find ot be unfair or inaccurate? If you can’t point that out, it seems to me you should be mad at the President, not at me….
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I wouldn’t say it was unfair or inaccurate, just unrelated.
This is the same banal bullshit that’s been happening forever: journalists get swept up in a mass arrest during a riot/protest. Nothing new or special.
The US Attorney pushing the charges is an Obama appointee. That’s probably the only novel thing about this, I suppose: DC is the only city where a Federal prosecutor will end up trying to lock you up journalists who get swept up like this. Normally it’d be a local schmuck (e.g. Carlos Miller is probably on a first-name basis w/ attorneys in the Miami DA’s office by now…)
TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates “OMG Trump!” with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some new troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates “OMG Trump!” with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some new troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights.”
Do me a favor, honestly, and let me know what you think. Read the whole thing again with the knowledge that the way I was actually TRYING to position the post was that this is a continuation of a practice during the inauguration of someone whose stated aims and public statements suggest that this will become an even DEEPER problem than already exists. In other words, the argument I was making was that past administrations’ bad actions have opened the door to someone who might make past abuses look like child’s play (this, again, is based on Trump’s statements about the press generally).
I’m honestly interested if you think it reads differently the second time around. I typically try to avoid being so explicit in the framing of a post, trusting that I’m getting my message across, but that doesn’t mean I’m always, or even usually, successful….
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Alrighty, I’ll do that. But I’ll also do one better and see if I can get the opinion of a coworker or two. I’ll get back to you.
To be fair, this might just be a problem with me. Kinda fed up with bad examples of “Trump so bad!” He’s bad enough w/o blaming him for other people’s crap…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“To be fair, this might just be a problem with me. Kinda fed up with bad examples of “Trump so bad!” He’s bad enough w/o blaming him for other people’s crap…”
I completely understand this sentiment. I too wish those opposed to President Trump would be honest in their criticism, and too often they are not. Nobody who reads what I write is under the misconception that I’m a fanboy of the President, but I try to be fair about it. Hence a paragraph dedicated to President Obama, where I have to say is the only paragraph that I got truly snarky….
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5q3ck5/iam_independent_journalist_tim_pool_founding/
Sounds like in this case, at least some of the journalists who got arrested weren’t behaving very journalistic. The ones who were… didn’t get arrested. As told by a journalist who was there.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’ll have you stop introducing facts into a good Trump bashing sir! Those journalists are victims of a soon to be repressive billionaire, media hating, first amendment destroying, Trump!!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The results are in. Between the three of us…
One sees no implication that the article is blaming Trump, stating: "Trump appears to be a man who wants to bring the press to heel, especially in light of the comments made about him during the election. To me the real news it that we allow public officials to abuse power and write it off as a common practice"
One only has a problem with the line:
Stating "calling the arrests ‘another first’ here kind of makes it sound like this is new for the Trump age, even if he does say this has been happening a lot elsewhere in the article."
And then there’s me. To play armchair quarterback: I’d of reversed the order of the article. Talk about the arrests, then talk about the fact that oh, by the way, these arrests (and tons of others) were under the ‘most transparent administration’ in history that constantly paid lip service to the importance of a free press. Finally, point out the new guy has been very public about his disdain for the press and his desire to bring them to heel (to borrow an apt phrase from a coworker), so if you think this is bad, you’d better buckle up…
But then again, I make buttons for a living, not write articles, so my thoughts on the matter are of dubious value. 😉
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I write articles, and I approve this message.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Come on Helmet, I’m a fan of your writing I really am. Having said that; I don’t understand how you honestly don’t think your opening paragraph doesn’t read as Trump bashing.
First you point out he’s a Billionaire. Then you go on to say he’s taking aim at the First Amendment. Then you state he’s basically declaring war on the press. Then you go on to say that on his first day as President, the police arrest 8 journalists covering a protest at his inauguration.
However true any of those things are, and aside from the last sentence, did any of those things have anything to do with what the DC police did? In my honest opinion, the first paragraph read like you were winding up a flaming fastball aimed right for Trumps head.
Disagree if you want, that’s just how it read to me.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“First you point out he’s a Billionaire.”
…..that’s bashing?
“Then you go on to say he’s taking aim at the First Amendment.”
…..and I linked to our own post about him doing exactly that. That isn’t bashing, it’s referencing our previous accurate post.
“Then you state he’s basically declaring war on the press.”
From President Trump’s own speech at the CIA the other day: “As you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth.” How is it bashing to accurately paraphrase his own words, exactly?
“Then you go on to say that on his first day as President, the police arrest 8 journalists covering a protest at his inauguration.”
Well, to be fair, the only reason I wrote that SIX journalists were arrested, not eight, is because it, you know…..happened.
“However true any of those things are, and aside from the last sentence, did any of those things have anything to do with what the DC police did? In my honest opinion, the first paragraph read like you were winding up a flaming fastball aimed right for Trumps head.”
Excuse me, but the President is the chief of the enforcement wing of the government at the federal level. He may not directly write policy for local and state law enforcement, but are you really suggesting that they do not take their cue or influence from THE PRESIDENT? Posture by a president makes a difference and, as he has framed the media as an enemy, you’re suggesting that this sentiment and framing won’t filter to the local level?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I was hoping you would appreciate a different perspective on your writing. I’m starting to think I’ve offended you somehow. My apologies if that’s the case, that was not my intention.
I was being a bit playful with my wording before. Let me try a different approach.
The introduction of a series of seemingly irrelevant remarks at the beginning of the story, again however true they may be, set a tone that was reading very hostile to me. Especially when you read later in the story that this issue isn’t new or partisan. That the U.S. has a long standing history of arresting journalists.
Intentions aside; The story “read” like Trump was the cause, or at least a major contributor to all this, when really it’s been a problem since long before Trump.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“I was hoping you would appreciate a different perspective on your writing. I’m starting to think I’ve offended you somehow. My apologies if that’s the case, that was not my intention. “
Meh, I hardly ever manage to take offence at anything, and certainly not that easily, so don’t think that.
“The introduction of a series of seemingly irrelevant remarks at the beginning of the story, again however true they may be, set a tone that was reading very hostile to me. Especially when you read later in the story that this issue isn’t new or partisan. That the U.S. has a long standing history of arresting journalists.”
They. Are. Not. Irrelevant. The point is that the continuation of this treatment of journalists is not only likely to continue under President Trump for the very reasons I stated in the opening, but IT’S GOING TO GET WORSE for those reasons. That was the entire point of how I framed this.
“Intentions aside; The story “read” like Trump was the cause, or at least a major contributor to all this, when really it’s been a problem since long before Trump.”
If a significant number of people really are reading it that way, despite me, you know, pointing that out exactly within the post itself, then I’ll accept responsibility for it. I truly didn’t think I had to be so explicit in spelling this stuff out, but perhaps I overestimated some who are reading this post….
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
” I truly didn’t think I had to be so explicit in spelling this stuff out, but perhaps I overestimated some who are reading this post….”
Way to connect with your fans lol….
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I read it how you intended, with fair bashing on Obama, and the recent arrests which were done under the pall of a POTUS who publicly cites the press as the enemy.
That said, I can see how others read it differently, through no error of their own.
The Mona Lisa is special because Da Vinci painted the face twice, once with high-contrast lines, and one with low-contrast strokes. The result is, the face looks different depending on how you look at it. Neither interpretation is wrong.
https://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/illusions-whats-in-a-face/
What I’m saying is that your piece has similar characteristics, but unlike DaVinci, that probably was not your objective.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Nice analogy Derek. I appreciate your understanding. I read the story a couple of more times. If I rearrange the story a bit, like Christopher said, and read the last bits first then start at the top, it completely changes the tone.
meh… maybe I’ve just been “overestimated”….凸
Re: Re:
I hate the guy as much as anybody else, but linking this to Trump is just stupid.
Sadly, they tried to find a way to link it to Hillary, but thought too many people would notice.
Re: Re:
No, Timmy isn’t better than this. Get used to it, we will see this for the next 4 to 8 years.
#MAGA
#KAG
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, about that #kag thing…you might wanna rethink it.
Urban dictionary has a few unflattering definitions. One being:
Kag
A disgusting being; rude and hated; found disturbing and ugly; hated and unwanted; considered socially awkward.
The orange, small-handed man was considered a kag to all the other children.
Just trying to help.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It will have a new entry soon. Besides, after he makes America great, I hope he keeps it that way. You should hope for the same.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah the new entry will be garden variety troll of no special import, akin to gum on the bottom one ones shoe.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hopefully this one he won’t lift from The Purge: Election Year.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-reveals-2020-re-election-campaign-slogan-article-1.2949282
Stealing is wrong.
Read for content, not trump...
“Keller’s report, which also covers the arrests of an unknown number of unidentified other people,”
They were caught up in a SWEEP. THEN produced “documents” showing they were “journalists”, as if that was some kind of get out of jail free card.
As another commenter put it, a bunch of art history failures who can’t find jobs protesting the unfairness of the world.
Re: Read for content, not trump...
Oh, so the police were just arresting everyone not a cop, whether they were doing anything wrong or not. And you think that’s OK. I see.
Re: Re: Read for content, not trump...
Oh, so the police were just arresting everyone not a cop, whether they were doing anything wrong or not. And you think that’s OK. I see.
My quote from the article:
“Keller’s report, which also covers the arrests of an unknown number of unidentified other people,”
If there’s ten guys standing in front of a smashed store window, cops routinely arrest them all and sort them out later.
An unpublished number of people were arrested. Six of them declared themselves “journalists”.
The entire article is about those six.
Re: Re: Re: Read for content, not trump...
“If there’s ten guys standing in front of a smashed store window, cops routinely arrest them all and sort them out later.”
And that’s a real problem. The same mentality behind “kill them all and let God sort them out”.
Re: Read for content, not trump...
Bamboo Harvester was a horse. Please learn the difference between being a horse and being an ass. (unless you’re trying to be a horse’s ass, then carry on)
Re: Read for content, not trump...
I was with you up to the last sentence. That one’s on par with “You voted for Trump? You some kind of herp derp ignoramus?”
Then again, I’m proud of my arts degree; it’s part of how I got a six figure job that enriches society and protects the innocent — changing the world instead of just protesting its unfairness.
If the protests were really all filled with art history failures who can’t find jobs… WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE SO MANY ART HISTORY FAILURES WHO CAN’T FIND JOBS? And more to the point, how did they all end up at protests? And more to the point, where were they during the election?
/rant.
Timothy’s first paragraph was a bit pointed, agreed. The aim of the article itself was pretty obvious though. And people who protest? Don’t discount them. They saw something and said something, instead of just complaining on the Internet.
Re: Re: Read for content, not trump...
If the protests were really all filled with art history failures who can’t find jobs… WHY DOES AMERICA HAVE SO MANY ART HISTORY FAILURES WHO CAN’T FIND JOBS?
This!
What about them Trump? You’re supposed to be a president for all Americans.
Fuck coal! Embrace art!
So you’re saying the charges were…trumped up?
Journalists arrested...
With the current state of “journalism” in the US, it is much easier to believe that the “journalists” were participating in trashing police cars than that they were performing any actual journalism.
Re: Journalists arrested...
You sir have made an astute observation.
Re: Journalists arrested...
Yeah, but if they’re going to be charged with it, you’d think that someone would have to actually allege that they DID do that, not just that they were in a crowd and some people in that crowd were doing that.
I mean, I have some sympathy if a police officer has to arrest a lot of people on the same day and can’t later remember which one did what – but still, if you can’t articulate what they did, you can’t charge them with a crime.
Re: Re: Journalists arrested...
That being said, reporters on the scene stated that there was a group of black blockers shouting and inciting, and the arrested journalists got caught up with this group and one was yelling verbal threats at the police.
So they all get rounded up to keep the peace, at which point they slowly get sorted out as to who was doing what.
I sure wouldn’t have wanted to be wearing all black. Remind me never to wear all black to a protest.
Questions
If there were several hundred thousand people in the streets, and at least some of them are actually protesting, why were only journalists arrested?
It would seem like journalists would be covering the protesters rather than protesting. Then they are arrested and charged without any actual accusatory language in the charges? Whether you like or hate the government, this seems like targeting journalists, rather than ‘rioters’.
Quote for Trump cheerleaders out there
“Now, it’s not as though it was only upon President Trump’s inauguration that journalists were suddenly being arrested while performing their jobs. It happened on several occasions under Barrack Obama, beacon of transparency and press access though he claimed to be. Instead, this is something of a continuation of an attack on a free and open press, buttressed by a President engaged in open warfare with any press outlets he doesn’t find favorable. “
This is from the article. While the article does emphasize that Trump is taking an antagonistic stance towards any journalist that report even the slightest bad facts about him it’s clear the critic goes further than Trump alone. So, please, leave your partisan bullshit out of it.
Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
Remember when we complained that no one ever challenged the WH on the grounds that they were trading favourable coverage for access?
Now that they’ve decided to do their jobs, Trump is outraged and has quite rightly interpreted this as discrimination.
However, this is not due to the press being predominantly liberal/progressive, it’s because the Establishment is predominantly liberal/conservative, i.e. personal freedom, free markets, freedom of religion, etc. Now that “liberal” means “tree hugging hippie socialist,” it’s a dirty word and we’re given a choice between authoritarianism or personal freedom. Attempts to cast either side of the aisle of being the only or main tyrant tend to fall flat on investigation; it’s actually a matter of which flavour you like your authoritarianism to be: with or without welfare, etc.? Therefore the Far Right has worked to rebrand itself as mainstream, decrying anyone who doesn’t share their extremist views as “leftist/socialist,” etc. It’s interesting to note that the further right they go, the more anarchic they become, to the point where anything that’s in the public interest is automatically a socialist concern and is therefore suspect. We see this every day in the comments when the “Cuck” -calling right-wingers hop in to scream at us for failing to bow down when the music plays for Trump’s golden image.
That the press connived at this, presenting facts garnished and flavoured to suit the tastes of their increasingly biased audiences for the sake of turning a dollar didn’t help. By their fruits ye shall know them: how many families do any of you know of where people don’t speak to each other because they’re on different sides in the culture wars? We reap what we sow, people, we bought into this because t’other side is a bunch of __________.
Basically, Trump the anti-establishmentarian believes that now he’s in the WH and his party owns both Houses, he and his anarchist buddie ARE the establishment and therefore the press ought to kow-tow to him as they did to Obama. This is pure Obama envy. He wants the same deference Obama received and is annoyed that he’s not getting it. But Obama knew how to play the game; Trump is an outsider. It amuses me to see how the most egregious things that Obama did were hand-waved away by the press during his tenure while pearls are clutched and couches are fainted upon now. That’s what you get for trying to influence an election via biased coverage instead of calling the powers-that-be out for misbehaving irrespective of which party they’re in.
“We tortured some folks.” – Obama
“Torture works!” – Trump
That CIA torture report won’t be prised loose any time soon as it contradicts that narrative, and anything that contradicts #TrumpFacts is dismissed, ignored, or disappeared.
That Obama got away with it is mostly due to his disarmingly urbane approach and willingness to feed his pets well. That does not let anyone off the hook for failing to challenge his abuses and overreach, but it does explain why the press has woken up and started to do its job. Whether or not the divide-and-conquer strategy to segment their audience will cease is a matter of speculation but until the public learns to stop having its opinions dictated to it a la carte by the media outlets that appeal most to its prejudices, expect things to get a lot worse before they get better, particularly if you cover events unapproved by the new big government.
Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
“”We tortured some folks.” – Obama”
If you’re going to be honest, you could mention that this quote is both a) not in support of torture and b) was made in reference to investigation of events that happened during the previous administration. In fact, he officially put a stop to torture as an acceptable interrogation tactic not long after taking office.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying
There’s plenty to criticise him for, but the juxtaposition of those quotes seem like you’re equating the two, which is dishonest. Obama’s regretful quote over Bush’s legacy does not equate to Trump’s current support of increased torture.
Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
He may have stopped it, he may have even been blunt and honest enough to call it what it was, but at the same time it seems like he just couldn’t help but defend those that did it(not to mention dragging the term ‘patriot’ through the mud by claiming that those who engaged in torture of prisoners were ‘real patriots’).
“It is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job those folks had,” he said. “A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”
Seeking to explain the context in which the CIA adopted its controversial programme, the president continued: “It is important, when we look back, to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell, and the Pentagon had been hit, and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent.”
As well this line…
“That needs to be understood and accepted. We have to as a country take responsibility for that so hopefully we don’t do it again in the future.”
… stands in stark contrast to his administration’s consistent fight against the release of the Torture Report or even the abbreviated version of it.
It was bad… but the people who engaged in it weren’t.
We need to take responsibility for it… by doing everything possible to bury the evidence that it ever happened.
We need to learn from our mistakes so we don’t do it again… by brushing them aside as not that big of a deal that people are getting unnecessarily worked up over.
His stance may not be too comparable to Trump’s, but it’s only just better I’d say.
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
“His stance may not be too comparable to Trump’s, but it’s only just better I’d say.”
I don’t buy it. Obama wasn’t apologetic enough about torture that happened before he took office, so he’s nearly as bad as the guy who is currently calling for it to be done again under his watch? That’s pretty ridiculous in my mind.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
‘Not apologetic enough’ wasn’t my concern, it was defending those that engaged in torture, even to the point of calling them ‘real patriots’.
What someone says is important, but not nearly to the extent of what they do. He put a stop to the practice so I’d agree that he didn’t like it, but doing absolutely nothing to punish those that engaged in the practice pretty clearly sends the message of ‘I don’t agree with what you did but I don’t actually object enough to do anything about it’, which is only compounded by trying to bury the Torture Report that reported what happened and how useless it was.
Trump is being overt in his support of torture, whereas Obama’s was more low-key, ‘I don’t like it, and I’ll put a stop to it, but I won’t go so far as to say it was criminal‘, and while I may have gone overboard in saying that he was ‘only just better’ I still don’t see his stance as anything to cheer on, as it strikes me as the absolute least he could do and get away with.
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
I tend to be more absolute than you are; an action is either beneficial/good or harmful/bad. That Obama did things more socially acceptably than Trump doesn’t make what he did okay.
Let’s be honest: it’s Trump’s bombastic, in-yer-face approach that causes all the upset. He’s just letting it all hang out. I’m giving nobody a pass here. I’d actually be all over Trump if he rolled back the abuses and the overreach.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
“I’d actually be all over Trump if he rolled back the abuses and the overreach.”
But he’s not, he’s doing the exact opposite. He’s not rolling back the abuses, he’s calling for them to be reinstated as policy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
And that’s what annoys me. Why oh why must we always be stuck between “bad” or “worse”?
We need to work to overcome the partisan pattycake problem, get as many people on board as possible, and join in any campaigns that address these issues.
Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
If Obama had been so regretful, why not release the torture report and discipline those responsible for the torture?
I can’t help thinking that he didn’t like it being exposed but bought into the idea that it works.
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
“If Obama had been so regretful, why not release the torture report and discipline those responsible for the torture?”
Wasn’t it officially allowed at that point it was being carried out? If so, what would he discipline them for? If not, what was the point of banning its use when he came into office?
“I can’t help thinking that he didn’t like it being exposed but bought into the idea that it works.”
Which, even if your assumption is correct, is still nowhere near on the same level as the man trying to re-implement it as policy. At worst, he secretly agreed with it but knew he had to retain the high ground, while Trump is instantly pissing away all the goodwill that might have garnered.
Again, there’s plenty to be criticised, but conflating the two positions is not correct.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
Fair dues, but then my focus is on outcome; Obama may have stopped it but we won’t be seeing that report any time soon.
Is there any campaign we can support that’s working to make it public?
Let’s be fair virtually all of the “media” groups trump has openly denounced as fake news has been proven to be creating fake news and openly lying about trump.
Illegal arrests!!!
…and if the judges who get their cases don’t throw the charges out, then we know those judges don’t care about the constitution!!!
I’d like to know what happened to the rape case against tramp??!!!
Re: Illegal arrests!!!
List your sources for your allegation, please.