Consider looking at the CNN reporting team that was arrested live on television without reason? It's not a good sign if media is being censored like that.

True. Media coverage of these protests has been basically a blackout. We've heard almost nothing.

C'mon. Of course they shouldn't have been arrested, but it's not some systemic suppression.

There are at least 20 cases of credentialed journalists being attacked or arrested by police in the last 48 hours. While a few of these may have been mistaken identity, many weren't.

https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1267037176614838272

People can pick and choose where they stand on this incident or perhaps even choose not to participate in the partisan dialectic.

I'd just like to point out that the opposing view on that incident would characterize it as exactly the kind of sensationalized coverage which the above poster could be referring to. One narrative suggests that it was staged. Worth looking at it from both sides. As we discuss this, let's not steam roll past those concerns.

My personal view is that there's more than a little BS flying from all angles. CNN wouldn't be what I consider hard hitting or informative journalism. I don't know what really happened and I can't jump to any conclusions. Thanks.

See other threads, but this is not an isolated incident. Trying to argue that it was staged seems incredibly disingenuous and an unreasonable standard of proof given the widespread occurrences of this and police brutality in the past 48 hours.

https://twitter.com/GravelInstitute/status/12669299271164682...

Just to be explicit, I don't take sides, I'm not interested in advancing any argument and I am skeptical of most claims. This goes doubly so for the extreme partisan takes, which are generally unreasonable. I'm sorry this disclaimer is seemingly necessary.

My personal views are secondary to the point of my comment, which was: Perhaps we should consider both sides?

The interesting thing about these claims is that in many there are multiple film views of the same incident, and in the CNN case there was an apology issued.

What exactly are you skeptical about?

If you must pry, I'll say that CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested. I'll also say that arresting a journalist is out of line and that the police could have let it ride. However no one is perfect, certainly not myself. Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.

For me I'm comfortable just leaving it as an unknown instead of attempting to take sides or claiming an authoritative understanding of the event. Moral grandstanding for either claim would be a further leap too far for me personally. However you are welcome to argue your opinion with someone else. I just can't do that in good faith. Thanks for understanding.

I hadn't actually seen the CNN incident until I saw it via the Australian journalist who were arrested.

It made quite an impact here - and while you seem to think it's journalist trying to get ahead in their careers in this case that doesn't make sense. Being arrested makes it more difficult for foreign journalists to re-enter the US which has a huge negative impact on their job.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/world/north-ame...

>you seem to think... I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.

Similarly, arresting reporters isn't a plus for a policeman's career.

I do take a position on outrage culture and rampant moralizing which is not serving us well. The blame game isn't the way out of this mess. One-sided, partisan takes are just more fuel on the fire.

> I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.

Except that you do.

> CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested.

> Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.

Police -> Under stress

Journalist -> advancing his career in a very cynical way

You seem to be using a rhetorical technique where you claim the moral high ground ("However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power."[1]) and then make third-person claims that you can deny are actually making an argument ("If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?").

No one else is calling you out on this, so I will. State your argument and stand behind it.

[1] Upthread, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23378751

There's no sense in having a discussion if you can't assume good faith. Similarly, if you are going to tell me my position, then why are we talking?

You put the cart before the horse when you accuse me of using a rhetorical technique to take the 'moral high ground'. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that my reluctance to pass judgement on either party informs my statements?

You selectively quote me and ignore that I've also said that the police could have 'let it ride'. If it helps you any, I'll say here that arresting journalists is generally a bad move. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the outset.

The statements you quote were in response to the suggestion that one side was in a position of power. Symptomatically, you divorce this from context as you seek to find meat for your partisan cleaver.

As humans our views are subjective and fallible. The problem of induction etc. If I want to find fault I can most probably nit pick each respective side for hours. No, this is not an invitation to level further criticism on either party. I think we have had enough of that and it isn't getting us anywhere.

You establish the options as Pepsi and Coke and demand that I must choose a cola. Yet, I am not interested in these sugary, carbonated beverages. Here's my view: Partisan takes are all a bunch of gas, short term stimulation with no nourishment.

I'll repeat myself again in case you're still not following. Narrow views, divorced of context are not serving us well. They create a divisive atmosphere. Each respective side engages in outrage culture while offloading responsibility for the ugly outcomes onto their adversary.

Choosing not to participate and a reluctance to rush to judgement isn't a rhetorical technique. It is an acknowledgement that the choices laid before us represent a false dichotomy. It is a rejection of the toxicity of outrage culture. Thank you.

Who says people have not considered both sides, reasoned, and then come to a conclusion? Considering both sides does not mean forbidding conclusions to be made. It's clear that I find your level of skepticism to be too far for the context, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

(edits for bad spellcheck)

But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power. You can claim neutrality ideologically, but that's useless in practicality. I'm sorry that you are disconnected enough from the world to not take sides or draw conclusions (even with caveats) unless you have a level of information that is practically impossible to gain.

>But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power

This is highly presumptuous mischaracterization of my statement and intentions. We're discussing something online, unless you have a crystal ball I'd say you've made a bit of a leap here.

I'm only going off what you said:

> I don't take sides

Not taking sides is de facto siding with the more powerful side in a situation for practical/effect purposes, this is pretty well established across many disciplines. I 100% am not saying you are ideologically siding with them, only that it is the effect of your lack of siding at all.

Thanks for clarifying.

Thinking in realpolitik may be a viable way to inform oneself of a strategy to achieve ends, but I don't accept it personally as a method of observation or diving a moral truth of an event. I.E. the means justify the ends etc. This is where I diverge on your assumptions. Usually this method is characterized as resulting in immoral outcomes.

Furthermore, it hasn't been established that CNN, with an army of lawyers on retainer and a a massive budget isn't in the position of power. For CNN the arrest played well if not better than the normal coverage. Would you dispute that the arrest buttressed CNN's narrative? These are the ends which were achieved by this event. It is evidenced by the fact that we are having this discussion.

Who has more power in media, CNN or whichever local police department?

The relevant expression would be, "The pen is mightier than the sword". However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power.

Let us also observe that the reporter was released. If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?

No, I am afraid that I am left with more doubts after examining it at depth.

I'm not from the US, but I used to be very much on the "things aren't as bad as they appear" thing too.

The last 6-9 months has made me change my mind.

The systematic firing of 5 inspector generals and the US Justice Department's reversal on the charges against Flynn and Stone have made me change my mind.

The US has always had inequal access to law, but now it appears the rule of law is in doubt. It doesn't matter if you are left or right leaning - if the law is that corrupted there is something to be concerned about.

There is something to be concerned about.

We felt that way when Hillary Clinton avoided charges after using her private e-mail server for sending and receiving classified information, after Fast and Furious, and the IRS targeting of conservative organizations. But those weren't framed as "the rule of law is in doubt" because a different guy was in the White House.

And if you're seeing the Flynn case as an example of a solid and reasonable case being dropped due to political interference, I don't think you've read enough about it.

Did you really just do a "what about Clinton's emails" and think that is an argument?

Literally Whataboutism

I provided clear examples of laws being broken, people not being held accountable, and people like you not caring when it's someone on your side pulling the strings.

Now another guy is in charge. This isn't new.

Where did you provide clear examples? If you mean Hillary Clinton then you do realize there have been six separate investigations and no charges.

Did you know that what happened in the Clinton case is not an uncommon occurrence? Did you know that Bush did the same thing[1]? And Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did the same?[2]

In all these cases it's not the right thing to do, but nor is it criminal.

And what is this "people like you" attack? The Marc Rich case is something I'll condemn Bill Clinton for any day of the week - it's a complete miscarriage of justice and I wish there was a way it could be reversed. I'm not aware of anything like that from the Obama era but it's possible I've missed it.

Justice matters much more than politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner...

I think everyone has been over this a million times, and it applies to all these cases. None of them have a criminal case to argue. That's the exact point - and it's the exact opposite of whataboutism!

I'll leave this here:

Because the government is awash in secrets, they are regularly mishandled unintentionally. In 2013, according to the National Archives, which tracks classification, executive branch agencies created more than 77 million documents with secrets in them, including 46,800 with newly created secrets. The FBI receives dozens of referrals of leaked classified information every year, according to Justice Department declarations to Congress.

Prosecutors have also been wary of testing whether broad prosecutions under the espionage laws would hold up in court, especially in cases of news organizations pursuing Secret or Top Secret information for publication. In the Clinton probe, investigators found that at least some of the classified information referred to was contained in a newspaper article that aides then forwarded to Clinton

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4394178/hillary-clinto...

At what, exactly? The President's announcements?

I think I'll stick to those parts of the world where opposing Fascism is legal.

Crime statistics. And then compare them to police brutality statistics to see if the outrage is warranted.

Also, opposing fascism is still legal here. We do actually have legally enshrined freedom of speech.

Free speech only goes so far when someone is kneeling on your throat.