![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
THE POLICE ARE TARGETING JOURNALISTS / WE ARE ALL JOURNALISTS NOW
ITEM: Wesley Lowery of 60 Minutes posted a Twitter thread in which he notes that the “police targeting journalists” narrative in the media is problematic in that it infers that the press has (or should have) more First Amendment protection than the protesters who are also being targeted.
The basic thrust is that both the press and protests have explicit freedom guarantees in the 1A, so when both groups’ rights are being violated, why be more outraged over one than the other?
It’s an interesting point – and clearly a good one, because it took me awhile to ponder this before coming up with a sensible reply.
1. First of all, I think it’s entirely possible to be outraged by both, and my impression is that most of the people who support the protests are.
2. That said, I do get Lowery’s point – there is this assumption that journalists should be off-limits in ways that protesters aren’t, and that doesn't seem fair. However, I don’t think it’s an apples-for-apples comparison, because journalists tend to be conferred special status for a couple of key reasons.
3. For a start, there’s the traditionally sanctified role of the press as the “Fourth Estate” in the checks-and-balances structure of the US govt. The watchdog role of media only works if they have the freedom to report without govt recrimination. Indeed, that’s the entire point of having a free press in the first place.
4. The other aspect – and perhaps more relevant to protest coverage – is the age-old notion that in any conflict situation, journalists are ostensibly objective non-combatants on the sidelines tasked with telling people what is happening and why. Yes, the reality is messy and complicated, and some will say there are no true non-combatants in a war zone, but we generally accept the idea that in conflict scenarios, you don’t target people who are not involved in your fight. And journalists are especially off-limits because of Point 3 above.
5. Even more directly related to the protests, journalists are there to not only report that a protest is happening, but also report whatever injustices or abuses of power may occur. And in the broader context of the POTUS himself declaring that any media outlet that is not praising his glory 24/7 is “the enemy of the people” spouting fake news for the purposes of overthrowing him, police brutality against journalists is especially egregious because it amounts to state power wielded by thugs to intimidate and/or punish the "enemy".
6. By contrast, protesters have specific 1A rights like the press do, but the role and relationship is different. Protests are a mechanism to air grievances en masse to get the government’s attention that enough people are upset about a particular issue that it needs to be addressed ASAP. The objective is also to get the attention of the press, who need the freedom to report unobstructed for the reasons mentioned above.
7. Where it gets interesting, however, is that 'citizen journalism' is very much a thing in this age of social media and ubiquitous smartphones that are essentially pocket-sized media production studios. So in a practical sense, we are all watchdogs. We are all journalists. So the roles specified in the 1A become blurred at least at street level, if not in a legal sense. We can get into a whole debate about pro journalism vs citizen journalism, and which one is more credible or reliable, etc. But it’s interesting that in the specific example of protests, the distinction between the 1A right to assemble and the 1A right of press freedom isn’t as clear as it used to be.
8. I’m not sure if this is what Lowery had in mind when he wrote that tweet – and it seems like he’s critical of journalists getting (or demanding) special treatment over protesters. I’m not so sure that journalists demand it, but if they do, I suspect it’s for the above reasons rather than any sense of entitlement (though I’m sure there are exceptions).
To be clear, though, Lowery isn’t saying journalists should have less 1A-based immunity from police violence – he’s saying protesters should have as much immunity from police brutality as the press do.
Dude’s got a point.
The weird turn pro,
This is dF
The basic thrust is that both the press and protests have explicit freedom guarantees in the 1A, so when both groups’ rights are being violated, why be more outraged over one than the other?
It’s an interesting point – and clearly a good one, because it took me awhile to ponder this before coming up with a sensible reply.
1. First of all, I think it’s entirely possible to be outraged by both, and my impression is that most of the people who support the protests are.
2. That said, I do get Lowery’s point – there is this assumption that journalists should be off-limits in ways that protesters aren’t, and that doesn't seem fair. However, I don’t think it’s an apples-for-apples comparison, because journalists tend to be conferred special status for a couple of key reasons.
3. For a start, there’s the traditionally sanctified role of the press as the “Fourth Estate” in the checks-and-balances structure of the US govt. The watchdog role of media only works if they have the freedom to report without govt recrimination. Indeed, that’s the entire point of having a free press in the first place.
4. The other aspect – and perhaps more relevant to protest coverage – is the age-old notion that in any conflict situation, journalists are ostensibly objective non-combatants on the sidelines tasked with telling people what is happening and why. Yes, the reality is messy and complicated, and some will say there are no true non-combatants in a war zone, but we generally accept the idea that in conflict scenarios, you don’t target people who are not involved in your fight. And journalists are especially off-limits because of Point 3 above.
5. Even more directly related to the protests, journalists are there to not only report that a protest is happening, but also report whatever injustices or abuses of power may occur. And in the broader context of the POTUS himself declaring that any media outlet that is not praising his glory 24/7 is “the enemy of the people” spouting fake news for the purposes of overthrowing him, police brutality against journalists is especially egregious because it amounts to state power wielded by thugs to intimidate and/or punish the "enemy".
6. By contrast, protesters have specific 1A rights like the press do, but the role and relationship is different. Protests are a mechanism to air grievances en masse to get the government’s attention that enough people are upset about a particular issue that it needs to be addressed ASAP. The objective is also to get the attention of the press, who need the freedom to report unobstructed for the reasons mentioned above.
7. Where it gets interesting, however, is that 'citizen journalism' is very much a thing in this age of social media and ubiquitous smartphones that are essentially pocket-sized media production studios. So in a practical sense, we are all watchdogs. We are all journalists. So the roles specified in the 1A become blurred at least at street level, if not in a legal sense. We can get into a whole debate about pro journalism vs citizen journalism, and which one is more credible or reliable, etc. But it’s interesting that in the specific example of protests, the distinction between the 1A right to assemble and the 1A right of press freedom isn’t as clear as it used to be.
8. I’m not sure if this is what Lowery had in mind when he wrote that tweet – and it seems like he’s critical of journalists getting (or demanding) special treatment over protesters. I’m not so sure that journalists demand it, but if they do, I suspect it’s for the above reasons rather than any sense of entitlement (though I’m sure there are exceptions).
To be clear, though, Lowery isn’t saying journalists should have less 1A-based immunity from police violence – he’s saying protesters should have as much immunity from police brutality as the press do.
Dude’s got a point.
The weird turn pro,
This is dF