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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrested, donald trump, free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, protests, reporters, riots, washington dc
Reader Comments
The First Word
“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.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We didn't do squat until Pearl Harbor.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That said, it was a tangent, and the focus is the US entering WW2 after Pearl Harbor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enticing a riot
C'mon baby. If you riot for me, i'll riot for you. [/sexy wink]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferguson was a test run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ferguson was a test run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ferguson was a test run?
Obama was authoritarian, so is Trump.
Partisan pattycake tends to distract us from those truths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So who again are the bad guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of the Kids
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of the Kids
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of the Kids
-- 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of the Kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think of the Kids
develop some critical thinking skills
>>Guns and ammo are expensive
On a World-Wide basis Manufactured Items are Real Cheap in the US,
Wages Though are less than in the rest of the first world countries
So if you are stuck on minimum wage, Guns and ammo are expensive.
>>and criminals have them anyway. They steal them or the buy them with drug money.
Crooks Have always sought access to Guns, But Why make it so easy for them to buy Quality guns.
Recreational Drugs are in high demand in the US, The Drug Price is Kept High Artificially by measures encompassed by your so called "war on drugs",
Hows that going, much like the Vietnam war I expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HA HA HA... TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!! ROFL!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, you know that Congress is the DC government right? Every single thing a normal city council or state legislature does is handled by congress.
The best part is, DC doesn't even get a vote. If you live in DC you don't even get to vote in the US presidential elections. There's a reason why Washington DC has license plates saying "Taxation without representation." It's not a joke, it's a sad reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"(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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, no, it isn't. It's Republican. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who is subject to the authority of Congress.
Nice try, again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TechDirt Silliness
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TechDirt Silliness
The fed has some leverage wrt the laws of the land. It could be that abuse of power falls within their purview.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TechDirt Silliness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If this becomes a national story,
I wonder what area of studies you approve of at protests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
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?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
reign in your smarm
i think herr trump plans to reign in his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If this becomes a national story,
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA! USA! USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
Obama's greatest accomplishment was building a strong Republican party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
Those you lost to a lying woman and a Kenyan Muslim.
Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
Alot.
But go ahead and overlook that while talking about your "mandate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
In other words, you can't win or lose a game that isn't even being played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump want even in charge yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump want even in charge yet
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...you...seem to be operating on the premise that angry comments from Trump supporters are a thing that anybody actually wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second-to-last paragraph of the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
they dont even try to hide it anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.....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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way to connect with your fans lol....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
meh... maybe I've just been "overestimated"....凸
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
#MAGA
#KAG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/donald-trump-reveals-2020-re-election-campaign-slogan- article-1.2949282
Stealing is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read for content, not trump...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for content, not trump...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read for content, not trump...
And that's a real problem. The same mentality behind "kill them all and let God sort them out".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read for content, not trump...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read for content, not trump...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalists arrested...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists arrested...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalists arrested...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journalists arrested...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions
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'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote for Trump cheerleaders out there
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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
Ther e'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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
I can't help thinking that he didn't like it being exposed but bought into the idea that it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
The Nazi concentration caps were officially allowed. That didn't keep those responsible from being punished after they were out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, At Least It's Stopped The Fawning Stenography
Is there any campaign we can support that's working to make it public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal arrests!!!
I'd like to know what happened to the rape case against tramp??!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal arrests!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“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.