What am I missing?

A Seattle Times reporter claims:

When asked to elaborate on the risk she replied,

We do not work for or with the police, and it’s important that we are not perceived as doing so. Journalists have been met with increasing hostility and threats because of this perception.

But, the subjects of those pictures and video surely would expect the recordings to fall into the hands of law enforcement when they were published. That is, unless they expected them to be edited or withheld in their favor before being published, right?

So, it would seem to me, that either the criminals would have to expect reporters to be biased in their favor or expect the recordings be available to the police. Hence, either the reporters are complicit in the crime or the risk to reporters is not changed.

Am I missing something here?


16 thoughts on “What am I missing?

  1. Is it not also true that the media regularly set up stings and supply the media and evidence gathered to Plod for them to action. Phil Luty, in the UK, springs to mind.

    They always want to have it their way don’t they.

  2. Complicit in the crime doesn’t do justice. Incitement of the crime comes closer.

  3. It’s quite simple. This is a subpoena. It requires you to provide the materials named in the subpoena. There is no “journalist” (if that is what you call yourself) exception to subpoena; a court may order anyone to turn over relevant information by subpoena at any time.

    BTW – the alternative to subpoena is the execution of a search warrant. Would you prefer that?

  4. I think the “journalist” is concerned that if the police can get access to their photography in any circumstances, they will not be able to move freely in the mostly peaceful protests without being mostly peacefully ejected from the area or simply mostly peacefully remonstrated not to take photographs.

    This would make the mostly peaceful protests no-go zones for “journalism”, even those that are co-ideologues or “allies”. As a side effect, it would make it clear that those embedded rioters with “press” on their body armor are only using the term as propaganda armor.

    So, yeah, I can see how a Seattle Times “journalist” would be concerned from first hand knowledge of the situation and straight-line extrapolation from known principles. Maybe this person could explain why they thinks the argument is convincing?

  5. Lose control of the information. Lose control of the narrative. That, and all your fellow travelers end up in jail by your hand. I could see them whining about that happening.

  6. How can you be in danger from peaceful protesters?

    I mean, they’ve been telling us that they are peaceful protesters for months.

    • Even if you didn’t know this six month ago the evidence for it now is overwhelming.

    • Invoking the fifth would be an admission of having committed crimes in a civil proceeding, say a libel case or a damages case for arson.

    • “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

      This is being requested to be a witness against others. So unless the journalist participated in the crimes bring investigated, or were married to the accused, they can’t use this argument. Takings clause might be a better argument… But it is troubling in other aspects… How does one prove that recording equipment legitimately malfunctioned and wasn’t “distruction of evidence” if there was none to turn over?

  7. Everything you need to know about the media in one line:

    CNN shares office space and reporters with Al Jazeera.

  8. There are a quite a number of…Media Personalities (MSM and Local) that are guilty as hell of incitement.

    Pakistan knows how to deal with asshats like this.

    GWOT has supplied alot on info on dealing with terrorists like the media, burn loot murder, whatever those freaks were that AD’d there own amd the soyboy dyke white adherents.


Comments are closed.