zlacker

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+(OP)
The current wording is correct. The journalists are in fact being deliberately chosen as targets.

>>lostms+(OP)
Watching the videos posted online it certainly seems that the journalists were chosen as targets. At a bare minumum the police knew they were press (given that they are wearing badges indicating as such, often holding them above their head) and proceeded anyway.

>>lostms+(OP)
journalists were deliberately chosen as targets

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

>>lostms+(OP)
Well, some videos I've seen wouldn't exactly disagree.

>>crypto+f
This is not the first article claiming that on HN (the previous one was flagged to death). Like the previous one, this one does not show anything objective to support this interpretation.

>>lostms+(OP)
They are being arrested too. You need to deliberately select someone as a target for arrest.

>>lostms+(OP)
They were though. The videos out of twitter are completely horrifying. An endless wave of cops hearing "Reporter! Here's my badge! I am a reporter!" and just ... not caring. Bash their face, mace them, just follow orders. I saw a video where an officer smashed their video camera. A big one, the style a professional reporter uses.

It's our democracy. And we want to hope for the best. But damn if this isn't worrisome.

EDIT: Hehe, well. Sorry you got piled on. For what it's worth, I was very much on the side of the police about three days ago, so I had to do some soul searching. In case you're in the same boat: I urge you to go seek out and find some of the videos that people are upset about. It's not propaganda; it can't be. It's just footage from citizens.

>>lostms+(OP)
When you say that, it makes sense if perhaps police are just accidentally brushing by them while forcing their way up a street.

What the reality is is they are literally forcing themselves onto cameramen, pushing them into walls or other obstacles, hitting them.

That sounds pretty targeted to me.

>>lostms+(OP)
A tragic case of passive voice addiction, reader.

>>exoque+w
Just like experience accounts of individual members of riots, most videos I saw are very out of context. Specifically in regards to media representatives following lawful police orders before getting caught in the push.

>>crypto+f
Journalists are often targeted by rogue states

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/marie-colv...

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

>>lostms+(OP)
In at least some of the videos the journalists are not actually near any protesters, there's no way they just got caught up due proximity.

Multiple reporters have been shot at directly. The cops have shot into the cameras themselves to break them.

>>lostms+(OP)
I appreciate the desire for prudence on emotional topics - however, in this specific case, the description is a reasonable generalization. Maybe not all 110 cases were unreasonable or deliberate, but it's impossible to overstate the importance of the fact that many of the cases were.

>>lostms+A
The last time I linked you multiple objective instances showing journalists being attacked by the police unprovoked, you made some strong efforts to try and ignore the context of those videos.

I don't think you're here to actually argue in good faith at all.

>>lostms+W1
Either that or standing a bit away from crowd filming.

>>lostms+W1
OUR LATEST DATA:

192 total press freedom violations

—31+ arrests

—131 assaults (108 by police, 23 by others)

—30 equipment or newsroom damage.

Assault category breakdown:

45 physical attacks (30 by police)

30 tear gassings

17 pepper sprayings

46 rubber bullet/projectiles

https://twitter.com/uspresstracker/status/126787802436572365...

>>fzeror+o3
> ignore the context of those videos

Huh? There was no context in most of those videos, which was exactly the problem I was pointing to, and is the same one with this post.

>>xedeon+B4
Nothing here shows intent to apprehend specifically journalists.

Wikipedia shows >5,000 arrests overall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests. Which I bet means journalists were arrested way less, than an average protesting folk.

>>lostms+W1
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/...

>>watwut+D3
Objective data? Video? Even an account from journalists?

>>klyrs+X5
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+46
Plenty of videos on Twitter. These are just a few couple out of many:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1267449066947932163?s...

https://twitter.com/JordonLee/status/1267600319522971649?s=2...

>>lostms+Qf
Even after identifying themselves with their press credentials? Come on.

>>lostms+Qf
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+Ck
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

>>lostms+46
You asked where they were located. I answered.

>>lostms+D5
Are you suggesting > .6% (31/5000) of the protesters were journalists? That seems implausible.

>>bigfud+ux
I've been to quite a few (admittedly smaller) protests, where the ratio was 1:2. So yes, 0.6% sounds like a small number.

>>watwut+Cr
You replied to the question if they were intentionally picked from the crowd for being journalists. Not where they were located.

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

I am not arguing if the events are misstated. I will continue calling it resolved, as crew took the apology and does not seem to want anything else. So why bring it up again?

> 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.

This whole discussion is a subthread of a comment, that the title might be misleading, because for many it will imply intent to attack journalists specifically.

> Officials are acknowledging that these are wrongful arrests, why can't you?

If you want a serious talk, we should use proper legal terms. "Wrongful arrest" definitely does not apply to the second of two cases, and in the official statement that wording was not used. They did apologize for making a mistake, which happens. But it is a mistake permitted by the law due to special circumstances (e.g. a riot).

> please continue looking into the evidence. Because there's tons of it and you know how to find it.

I am not making extraordinary statements, to which I consider "police intentionally focus journalists".

>>xedeon+Ui
The comment you are replying to addresses this:

> 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.

>>lostms+kH
And some were in the crowd and others were apart of crowd. No, they were not randomly stumbled upon nor are these cases of being randomly hit while police attacks indiscriminately. Through such cases exists too.

>>lostms+GI
Tell me that this isn't intent.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isPkpZehssY

>>lostms+GI
https://www.voanews.com/press-freedom/police-shove-make-ap-j...

>>klyrs+Zt2
From that article it is very clear police wanted everyone off, and the reporters thought they needed special treatment.

Police did not single them out because they are reporters.

Legality I am unaware, but why would you assume police knew that matter worse than the reporters?