The Protest Thread

[B]

While I don't defend targeting these people, using the terms "reporters" and "journalists" for people purposefully distorting the news is quite disingenuous.

Point me to the real journalists.

I'm not foolish enough to think that you'd accept any answer anyone put forth, but in the range from good to poor, these guys are sub-basement.

[BurtReynolds]

While I don't defend targeting these people, using the terms "reporters" and "journalists" for people purposefully distorting the news is quite disingenuous.

Point me to the real journalists.

I'm not foolish enough to think that you'd accept any answer anyone put forth, but in the range from good to poor, these guys are sub-basement.

You're right, you probably couldn't produce an example that would satisfy me. I assure you there are many more levels to this basement and this is hardly the lowest level.

I think one of the more insidious boomer/gen Xer ideas that still lingers on like the undead is the idea that it's only real journalism if the journalist works for a real media organization. As though there is any actual difference between a citizen journalist (many with hundreds of hours of video posted that can't be easily dismissed as edited) editing video to suit an agenda and a totally real news org like CBS doing exactly the same thing (with far fewer examples of unedited video).

I mean, if you don't want to acknowledge any of them as real journalists, that's fine. Just don't pretend that the propagandists working at corporate liberal media or places like The Intercept are either.

[McParadigm]

Too me it looks like the guys are walking away, hit from behind and taunted, then some dude with a megaphone yells in their face before the trump supporter pushed him.

It sounds like what you're saying is, the fuller footage gives you more context for the events that follow. And the full footage is not long...it's still a bite-sized, easily-shared clip.

So what's the journalistic rationale for editing out only the footage of one side's aggressions, in that case?

[surfndestroy]

Too me it looks like the guys are walking away, hit from behind and taunted, then some dude with a megaphone yells in their face before the trump supporter pushed him.

It sounds like what you're saying is, the fuller footage gives you more context for the events that follow. And the full footage is not long...it's still a bite-sized, easily-shared clip.

So what's the journalistic rationale for editing out only the footage of one side's aggressions, in that case?

Probably the same as when a 15 yr old was targeted by media for smirking. Fear and hatred sell.

[McParadigm]

Too me it looks like the guys are walking away, hit from behind and taunted, then some dude with a megaphone yells in their face before the trump supporter pushed him.

It sounds like what you're saying is, the fuller footage gives you more context for the events that follow. And the full footage is not long...it's still a bite-sized, easily-shared clip.

So what's the journalistic rationale for editing out only the footage of one side's aggressions, in that case?

Probably the same as when a 15 yr old was targeted by media for smirking. Fear and hatred sell.

Interesting that the initial reporting on that event was based on the full amount of available video at that time, and was later retracted quite loudly...including by those organizations that got it wrong.

Nobody argues that the media is infallible, or even close to it. But I would argue that the degree to which a news reporting service can be called "reliable" is fully dependent upon their ability to face the scrutiny of other organizations, correct the record when necessary, and issue full on retractions where appropriate.

Propaganda seeks to present as news content materials that are outside of that review process. In fact, it needs to be insulated from review.

[BurtReynolds]

retracted quite loudly? Come on man.

[McParadigm]

I think one of the more insidious boomer/gen Xer ideas that still lingers on like the undead is the idea that it's only real journalism if the journalist works for a real media organization.

I think the wimpiest idea to take hold among the Very Online is that their preferred media sources should be uniquely protected from ordinary journalistic review.

News orgs fact check each other all the time. How many times has Bi_3 popped in and say "this is interesting, if this new report is true it means x is the problem, not y," then shared an article clarifying or retracting details from previous articles? The excitement Fox gets from highlighting an inaccuracy in a NYT report or that CNN gets from fact checking Fox News is almost palpable. And why not? It's great for your brand to catch another brand missing something important.

The idea that any reporting is made better or more honest by being unshackled from outside critique is laughable.

[BurtReynolds]

News orgs fact check each other all the time.

No they don't. They reinforce each others attempts to promote their common narratives and try to pass off more opinion as "fact checks". The term "fact check" is itself nonsense. All real journalism is a fact check.

The idea that any reporting is made better or more honest by being unshackled from outside critique is laughable.

In reality, the "outside" critiques [edit: of the media by the media] don't actually come from the outside. The mistake you make is believing that there are magical unbiased authorities (the media orgs themselves) that can serve as objective arbiters. This is utterly impossible. It's better to dispense with the idea entirely.

This has all been gamed. There are no uncompromised institutions. That isn't a pleasant reality, but it is reality. If you're not starting from a place of radical skepticism about everything you hear from the media, you are doing it wrong.

[spike]

sounds exhausting

[McParadigm]

If you're not starting from a place of radical skepticism about everything you hear from the media, you are doing it wrong.

People should always be prepared to accept that journalism can be wrong. And they should be confident enough in their chosen sources to want that reporting subjected to the same review and criticism that everyone else withstands. Like when you posted a Bloomberg article yesterday. You weren't worried about being made to look like a fool, because you recognized that it would very likely hold up to subsequent reporting by Bloomberg's competitors. In other words, you determined it was most likely true.

Citizen journalists can be effective and powerful voices. But that doesn't mean their reporting is inherently more reliable, or that it deserves a special status above the normal scrutiny.

[Bi_3]

Too me it looks like the guys are walking away, hit from behind and taunted, then some dude with a megaphone yells in their face before the trump supporter pushed him.

It sounds like what you're saying is, the fuller footage gives you more context for the events that follow. And the full footage is not long...it's still a bite-sized, easily-shared clip.

So what's the journalistic rationale for editing out only the footage of one side's aggressions, in that case?

I've certainly never said less information about an event is better. What I am saying here is that I dont think the event captured in the longer video happened as the article described it, it in fact shows the opposite of what the article authors are saying, thus in this specific instance their assertion is false.

[B]

A Trump nominee?

[Bi_3]

How it started:

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/86753207 ... -officials

The plaza between St. John's Church and Lafayette Park was full of people nonviolently protesting police brutality late Monday afternoon when U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops, with the use of tear gas, suddenly started pushing them away for no apparent reason.

And then it became clear.

President Trump wanted to walk from the White House through the park to the Episcopal church. Camera crews scrambled to keep up with him as he strode through the park, followed by his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with Attorney General William Barr and other administration officials.

How it’s going:

Report: Park Police didn’t clear Lafayette Square protesters for Trump visit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... te-square/

.

When the U.S. Park Police led law enforcement into a crowd of mostly peaceful protesters outside Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, including officers equipped with chemical irritants and officers on horseback, they did so as part of a plan made days earlier to build a fence around the park to protect officers, not to facilitate the visit minutes later by President Donald Trump to a nearby church, a new inspector general’s report concluded Wednesday.

The report also found that D.C. police officers fired tear gas at protesters as they moved away from the park toward 17th Street, and that Bureau of Prison officials fired pepper spray munitions, both contrary to what Park Police commanders had instructed. Investigators also found that the audio warnings issued to the Park Police before the operation were not widely heard by the crowd and mostly ineffective.

[Rob]

So our leader at the time simply took advantage of the police violence for a photo op, rather than order it himself. Although, who ordered the police to clear them out to build that fence, and why did no one say "hey, there's a lot of people out there, where's plan B?"

[B]

Ha! at someone in the Trump Administration having any plan at all, let alone a Plan B.

[Bi_3]

Ha! at someone in the Trump Administration having any plan at all, let alone a Plan B.

Trump was always opposed to Plan B

[elliseamos]

And this explains what about the need for the fence?

[simple schoolboy]

And this explains what about the need for the fence?

I thought fences were good now? Something like 70 Secret Service officers were injured during the clashes at the main whitehouse fence, and at some point the protesters tried to demolish it. Additional fencing is reasonable to avoid the Ashli Babbit scenario of protesters breaching the main fence and getting shot.

[elliseamos]

That avoids the question and sends us in the wrong direction.

[simple schoolboy]

That avoids the question and sends us in the wrong direction.

What on earth are you on about? Shouldn't the cops add physical barriers to reduce the likelihood of multiple protesters making it onto the grounds? At that point, people get shot.

What direction would you rather us go towards? Reducing the physical barriers and use of chemical agents so that more secret service agents get injured and the likelihood of lethal force being used is higher?