zlacker

>>laurex+(OP)
I think it would show more nuanced sentiment to say, that on 110 occasions journalists ended up caught in aggressive police action since May 28. Current wording would have an implication for many people, that journalists were deliberately chosen as targets.

>>lostms+44
There is plenty of video footage of journalists being directly targeted and attacked by the police.

>>throwa+p4
Intentionally picked up from the crowd?

>>lostms+06
Intentionally picked up from a position that police told them was okay to take. Offered to move for a subsequent officer who confronted them, and were arrested for resisting arrest. Don't take my word for it, cameras were rolling the whole time. Governor acknowledges that this was improper.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/cnn-reporters-cover...

Another case where a reporter shows his credentials and gets arrested anyway. Attorney General acknowledges that the action was improper.

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/how-we-live/2020/06/01/...

>>klyrs+1a
The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).

The second one does not seem like a major problem to me, as the police might not know a random filming guy showing some piece of paper to be an actual reporter, rather than just a friend of the rioters filming their action for YouTube. It seems it also was resolved.

Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if the media badge is valid, I would count it as an honest mistake with no major consequences.

Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally, and more supports my point that journalists were caught in the process.

>>lostms+Uj
That's two examples, literally the first two hits of an obvious search. Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?

There's 110 cases mentioned in this article. Instead of demanding that we spoon-feed you evidence, please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.

> The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?).

Sure. Call it resolved. That does not mean that it didn't happen the way that it's being described.

> Again, this does not support the implication of the title, that police picked journalists intentionally...

This is a really weird point to get hung up on, given that the title of the original article is "U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28". Where does it say "intentional"? I can't decide if this is a strawman or goalpost shifting, but either way your approach to this conversation is odious.

>>klyrs+Go
It's also still trending up. It was 192 a few hours ago, now it's up to 204.

Source:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zk9oFDJ3Ocbz80Z1ISSW...

https://twitter.com/uspresstracker