For example, a CNN reporter was arrested mid-broadcast and there was footage of some people with cameras being attacked even though they were sat at the side of the road filming rather than taking part.
"Equally plausible" is false equivalency.
Journalist isn't a protected title. And I wonder how many activists don the "Journalist" label at protests.
> But according to the article, most arrests happened in connection with Black Lives Matter protests.
Kinda answered your own question here. Journalists were arrested for being present at newsworthy events, recording the truth as it unfolded before them
Not really. The first amendment protects freedom of the press as well as freedom of assembly. Arresting protestors has a similar chilling effect on speech.
But according to the article, most arrests happened in connection with Black Lives Matter protests.
It seems equally plausible that more people than ever try to evade arrest by claiming they are journalists. Or journalist have less and less ethics when doing their jobs.
Not saying that's the root cause, just that you can not simply assume all those people were arrested for telling "the truth".
And how do people who bemoan that stand on the subject of censorship on social networks?