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".
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?