There you go. The Australian Prime Minister is calling for investigation into why police attacked an Australian news crew.

There are literally hundreds of video's like that out there.

>[Protesters] physically refused to obey lawful commands.

You may or may not be aware, but that’s typically what protest via assembly means.

2. You are replying to a different person. If you’re going to be so condescending and rude at least employ due diligence in identifying who you’re replying to. Or, preferably, just stop being so rude and condescending.

Are you suggesting the footage was doctored? Where do you host video, if not YouTube? Honest question. If video from a reputable Australia News crew, hosted on YouTube is not adequate, what do you think would be?

The article in questions is titled:

U.S. police have attacked journalists more than 120 times since May 28

The person to which you replied was questioning the trustworthiness of the data upon which that claim is based. Do you consider footage of one event conclusive evidence for 120 events?

Would your thinking style change if we switched up some of the variables, say something like:

Young black males have attacked elderly women more than 120 times since May 28

Would one video be sufficient evidence to satisfy your mind in this scenario as well?

I smell a concern troll.

> but really to change minds you need to be concise and accurate in reporting

Ok. Show us the links you think are the right ones.

Being skeptical of claims from any side seems like what we should be striving for. There's no need to treat every story as True/False binary - considering the quality of the data we're working with, the most proper status for most claims should probably be [unknown].