The rule on not using the passive voice in journalism is suspended the moment it’s about cops misbehaving.

I hope someone out there is documenting just how consistently, it's astounding.

I still wonder how this happens. The only theory I know of is that if they don't give them positive coverage then they'll never get comment form them again, but is that really sufficient for it to be so universal and why have so few papers gone adversarial on this?

Police are also known to physically assault and arrest journalists from outfits they don't like.

Police in Canada? Do you have anything to back that up?

Here's one from just this past week (with plenty of prior/ongoing related mistreatment of journalistic activity in the area): https://caj.ca/blog/CAJ_urges_RCMP_to_follow_court_order_to_...

"officer-involved aircraft incident"

I assume you're referencing this? (If not, you're in for a treat here):

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...

I think GP and that article are both mocking the same thing; the tortuous lengths journalists will go to to avoid talking about police misconduct in the active voice.

Yeah, this is another case of the police thinking the rules don't apply to them. The "don't fly drones in certain airspace" isn't even about good guys and bad guys, it's about safety.

Obviously. But why were they there? Were they told to be flying there? Were they given the correct info on where to be flying? Who or what process lead this to happen?