Shocking behavior from Fairfax County Police Offices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So since the reporter popped in, was the nosy lady in the fuschia jacket part of the Gillepsie campaign? She seemed to be complaining about the reporter dude in the beginning of the video.

reporter here again...

We think certainly so. She was at a Women for Gillespie event I had attended the day before.

And, realistically, usually when someone is taking photos of a celebrity, the police think they are fans, right? So why else would policeman tell me to stay away so aggressively? At an event where Gillespie is expected to hand out candy, shake hands, kiss babies?

Yeah, the police were asked to keep me away.

Which is fine.

What is not fine is for the police to say "OK, we'll violate his civil rights and restrict his access to public spaces near you."

If the Gillespie campaign wanted a restraining order, there are courts they could go to. But... Good luck with that. I'm a campaign beat reporter, not a stalker.

[Anonymous]

I agree with pp who said the police were out of line and the bike cop needs his supervisor to explain that people are always allowed to video the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike Stark here, the reporter.

I'll address a few different topics that have been raised.

First, media credentials: "credentials" are issued by venues. The House and Senate has a credentialing office called the Gallery. State Houses, concert venues, sports stadiums and other organizations that frequently deal with media will generally establish their own criteria for credentialing. Some cities, like NYC and DC will also issue credentials to press that apply for them, but the vast majority of journalists do not. Most of us work from our desks with our telephone. Here, in Anandale, I'm not aware of any credentialing office for the parade. So was I credentialed? Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. When I'm asked for credentials, I produce my cell phone and navigate to my page on ShareBlue (which serves several million pages per day), and, if required, to other places I've been a reporter. But even who is and is not a reporter is something that's difficult to define. Are David Brooks, Sean Hannity, Paul Krugman and Peggy Noonan press? I think so... But they do something different from Lester Holt and Shepard Smith. And what about TMZ? The point is that I report news and people read my stuff. Sometime's I'm credentialed, sometimes I'm not. At this parade, credentials were irrelevant.

Next, the police order: The policeman told me to get out of the road. I complied with his order to get out of the road, immediately. Then the policeman told me to leave the campaign alone. I told him he'd have to arrest me if he expected me to comply with that order. He said he would. Now things started escalating quickly. I told him I was a reporter. He didn't care. Less than a minute later, I was face down on the sidewalk with a bunch of cops on top of me.

Here's the deal: I was there to cover the parade. Anyone remember the First Amendment and the clause about freedom of the press? Ed Gillespie thinks that doesn't apply to him; that he can enlist police to protect him from the press. That's absurd! I've got every bit the same right to public spaces that Gillespie does. We're both equal citizens. The police shouldn't be taking his side or mine - they should simply enforce the laws. And there is nothing illegal about me asking a candidate for governor questions on behalf of my news organization.

I've got more to say, but some work just came across my desk. Evidently, Gillespie called Northern Virginia "enemy territory"... I've got some writing to do. Catch you later.

So, let's reviewed...

You're not actually a credentialed reporter. Do you have credentials on Capitol Hill? With police? With any campaign? The blog used the word "credentials" and said you had "credentials." But all you seem to say is you wrote something on the Web and that makes you a reporter. No, you're not. You're IMPERSONATING a reporter. Please stop calling yourself "press." You're muddying the waters for both Democrats and journalists.

Signed, a Democrat and an actual journalist, credentialed by the House and Senate press galleries, the White House, four federal agencies, three different presidential campaigns, and in my earlier years, five different law enforcement agencies (in different cities). Qualifying for credentials, BTW, generally means fulfilling a set of criteria that asks about financial independence and in the case of the White House undergoing a background check by the Secret Service. There is ACCOUNTABILITY associated with those credentials. You don't just identify yourself as a reporter and navigate on your cell phone to a blog you write.

Should you have been arrested? I don't know. But you do seem rather belligerent and interested in escalating the situation rather than diffusing it. And, in this case, you violated one of the basic tenets of actual journalism: Never make YOURSELF the story.

So I was just on the Hill last week reporting for NowThis. And yes, I was credentialed by the Gallery.

But this debate is tired, tired, tired. Certain reporters (are you Eilperin by chance?) have long held animus toward the democratization of journalism. But here's the thing: you wouldn't feel so threatened if you did your jobs a little better. Ya know why I've been on the trail covering Gillespie since mid-September? Because no other media has asked Gillespie:

1. After Charlottesville, Mr. Gillespie, why is George Allen on your campaign? You know, the former governor that kept a Confederate Flag and a noose in his office... The guy that refused to sign a bill making MLK's birthday a state holiday, but did commemorate Confederate Day. The guy that used the n-word prolifically according to several witnesses.

2. After Las Vegas, Mr. Gillespie, why won't you release your NRA questionnaire? You made certain promises to the NRA, and won their endorsement as a result. Why won't you tell Virginian voters exactly what you promised by releasing your questionnaire?

3. You are running MS-13 ads across the state. Have you given any thought to the effect those ads may have on Latino families that are working hard and playing by the rules? My kids go to school with Latino children and my kids see those ads. What should I tell my kids to ensure we don't produce another generation of young adults that are scared of people that look different or speak a different language?

That's what I've been asking him for six weeks. Maybe you can tell me why that isn't journalism and what differentiates your work from mine.

It isn't journalism because these are "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. 1 & 3 are not aimed at extracting information. 2 is a little better. But on the whole, the wording and the tone are aimed at inflicting blows for partisan purposes. Your agenda is to discredit, not to extract information and embarrass him for political means. You're not a journalist -- you are an activist. This is not "citizen journalism." You're no better than Breitbart or James O'Keefe. You can be a provocateur all you want, but this not the way a professional behaves, nor is it more virtuous -- quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

I don't care if this guy is or is not a journalist, an activist, or Ralph Northam's nephew. I don't care how annoying he is. The police simply did not have probable cause to arrest him. They need to be better, more professional than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike Stark here, the reporter.


1. After Charlottesville, Mr. Gillespie, why is George Allen on your campaign? You know, the former governor that kept a Confederate Flag and a noose in his office... The guy that refused to sign a bill making MLK's birthday a state holiday, but did commemorate Confederate Day. The guy that used the n-word prolifically according to several witnesses.

2. After Las Vegas, Mr. Gillespie, why won't you release your NRA questionnaire? You made certain promises to the NRA, and won their endorsement as a result. Why won't you tell Virginian voters exactly what you promised by releasing your questionnaire?

3. You are running MS-13 ads across the state. Have you given any thought to the effect those ads may have on Latino families that are working hard and playing by the rules? My kids go to school with Latino children and my kids see those ads. What should I tell my kids to ensure we don't produce another generation of young adults that are scared of people that look different or speak a different language?

That's what I've been asking him for six weeks. Maybe you can tell me why that isn't journalism and what differentiates your work from mine.

It isn't journalism because these are "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. 1 & 3 are not aimed at extracting information. 2 is a little better. But on the whole, the wording and the tone are aimed at inflicting blows for partisan purposes. Your agenda is to discredit, not to extract information and embarrass him for political means. You're not a journalist -- you are an activist. This is not "citizen journalism." You're no better than Breitbart or James O'Keefe. You can be a provocateur all you want, but this not the way a professional behaves, nor is it more virtuous -- quite the opposite.

A couple of things...

If this is the case, the best of 60 Minutes, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Byron York, Eli Lake, Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent (and for that matter, what we read in, say New Yorker, Mother Jones, Harpers, The Nation, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.) is not journalism. In fact, no investigative journalism can be journalism, because it's all meant to expose folks with something to hide. The truth is, most Virginian's don't know about George Allen's racism (or even that he was a former Governor/Senator, for that matter). They also don't know Allen is on Gllespie's campaign. By asking the question, I convey a lot of information that at least some Virginians will find useful when deciding at the voting booth. As for #3, I would say that if Gillespie ever answered the questions, you are right - it would be activism rather than journalism to continue to ask the question. But... He's avoided that question for as long as I've been asking it.

I'd say this too: the best journalism is that which upholds the mission of the 4th Estate - the check on the power of the three branches of government. If you want good people in government, you should want aggressive media flushing out the candidate's weaknesses. And that applies to both sides. I'm a Democrat, so who better to put the GOP candidate to the test? And, for the good of the Commonwealth, I'd like to see a Republican doing what I do on the other side. An accountability media is crucial to a functional democracy.

I didn't want to address the Brietbart or O'Keefe part of your comment because it's unnecessarily demeaning and insulting. But I'm afraid if I leave it hanging, it'll be interpreted as acceptance on my part.

Both Brietbart and O'Keefe are liars. Not in all of their work, but in much of it, and in much of their presentation. Brietbart was responsible for the unbelievable egregious Shirley Sherrod hit, for example. O'Keefe has used unsavory practices to do some work that is of questionable legitimacy (NPR, NYT hits), but he's also presented his work in false context (ACORN, Robert Creamer). Both entities have shown, repeatedly, a willingness to mislead in pursuit of partisan gains. I have never, and will never, do that. At least not intentionally. And that, I think, is what separates journalists from something less ethical (I don't want to smear activists by using the term to describe O'Keefe and Brietbart).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really shocked by the police behavior here. I expected Fairfax County police to be better trained and above this.

https://shareblue.com/shareblue-media-reporter-violently-arrested-while-covering-gop-nominee-for-virginia-governor/#.WfiXwk1K9IY.twitter

From the video, it appears the issue was with one cop initially and then another who was close by. The hoard who came along to pile on top come from all directions and I bet they didn't really know what the situation was but all of a sudden look over and see them with a guy on the ground and get concerned thinking it could be something very serious - like someone with a weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "reporter" that works for a media company founded by a clinton staffer seems like a stalker to me.

Exactly what I was thinking. The police had probably been tipped off about him stalking Gillespie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike Stark here, the reporter.

I'll address a few different topics that have been raised.

First, media credentials: "credentials" are issued by venues. The House and Senate has a credentialing office called the Gallery. State Houses, concert venues, sports stadiums and other organizations that frequently deal with media will generally establish their own criteria for credentialing. Some cities, like NYC and DC will also issue credentials to press that apply for them, but the vast majority of journalists do not. Most of us work from our desks with our telephone. Here, in Anandale, I'm not aware of any credentialing office for the parade. So was I credentialed? Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. When I'm asked for credentials, I produce my cell phone and navigate to my page on ShareBlue (which serves several million pages per day), and, if required, to other places I've been a reporter. But even who is and is not a reporter is something that's difficult to define. Are David Brooks, Sean Hannity, Paul Krugman and Peggy Noonan press? I think so... But they do something different from Lester Holt and Shepard Smith. And what about TMZ? The point is that I report news and people read my stuff. Sometime's I'm credentialed, sometimes I'm not. At this parade, credentials were irrelevant.

Next, the police order: The policeman told me to get out of the road. I complied with his order to get out of the road, immediately. Then the policeman told me to leave the campaign alone. I told him he'd have to arrest me if he expected me to comply with that order. He said he would. Now things started escalating quickly. I told him I was a reporter. He didn't care. Less than a minute later, I was face down on the sidewalk with a bunch of cops on top of me.

Here's the deal: I was there to cover the parade. Anyone remember the First Amendment and the clause about freedom of the press? Ed Gillespie thinks that doesn't apply to him; that he can enlist police to protect him from the press. That's absurd! I've got every bit the same right to public spaces that Gillespie does. We're both equal citizens. The police shouldn't be taking his side or mine - they should simply enforce the laws. And there is nothing illegal about me asking a candidate for governor questions on behalf of my news organization.

I've got more to say, but some work just came across my desk. Evidently, Gillespie called Northern Virginia "enemy territory"... I've got some writing to do. Catch you later.

So, let's reviewed...

You're not actually a credentialed reporter. Do you have credentials on Capitol Hill? With police? With any campaign? The blog used the word "credentials" and said you had "credentials." But all you seem to say is you wrote something on the Web and that makes you a reporter. No, you're not. You're IMPERSONATING a reporter. Please stop calling yourself "press." You're muddying the waters for both Democrats and journalists.

Signed, a Democrat and an actual journalist, credentialed by the House and Senate press galleries, the White House, four federal agencies, three different presidential campaigns, and in my earlier years, five different law enforcement agencies (in different cities). Qualifying for credentials, BTW, generally means fulfilling a set of criteria that asks about financial independence and in the case of the White House undergoing a background check by the Secret Service. There is ACCOUNTABILITY associated with those credentials. You don't just identify yourself as a reporter and navigate on your cell phone to a blog you write.

Should you have been arrested? I don't know. But you do seem rather belligerent and interested in escalating the situation rather than diffusing it. And, in this case, you violated one of the basic tenets of actual journalism: Never make YOURSELF the story.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if this guy is or is not a journalist, an activist, or Ralph Northam's nephew. I don't care how annoying he is. The police simply did not have probable cause to arrest him. They need to be better, more professional than that.

They didn't need "probable cause." He wasn't following their orders and he was disruptive. The charges fit. My guess is he is convicted by a judge.

It really pisses me off when people behave irresponsibly and start whining for first amendment press protections. He needs to choose an argument -- was he a private citizen casually videotaping the parade or was he a member of the press, meeting all of the professional standards associated with that role as prescribed by the Society of Professional Journalists? He can't say "yes" to the latter and the former is squishy given his belligerence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike Stark here, the reporter.


1. After Charlottesville, Mr. Gillespie, why is George Allen on your campaign? You know, the former governor that kept a Confederate Flag and a noose in his office... The guy that refused to sign a bill making MLK's birthday a state holiday, but did commemorate Confederate Day. The guy that used the n-word prolifically according to several witnesses.

2. After Las Vegas, Mr. Gillespie, why won't you release your NRA questionnaire? You made certain promises to the NRA, and won their endorsement as a result. Why won't you tell Virginian voters exactly what you promised by releasing your questionnaire?

3. You are running MS-13 ads across the state. Have you given any thought to the effect those ads may have on Latino families that are working hard and playing by the rules? My kids go to school with Latino children and my kids see those ads. What should I tell my kids to ensure we don't produce another generation of young adults that are scared of people that look different or speak a different language?

That's what I've been asking him for six weeks. Maybe you can tell me why that isn't journalism and what differentiates your work from mine.

It isn't journalism because these are "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. 1 & 3 are not aimed at extracting information. 2 is a little better. But on the whole, the wording and the tone are aimed at inflicting blows for partisan purposes. Your agenda is to discredit, not to extract information and embarrass him for political means. You're not a journalist -- you are an activist. This is not "citizen journalism." You're no better than Breitbart or James O'Keefe. You can be a provocateur all you want, but this not the way a professional behaves, nor is it more virtuous -- quite the opposite.

A couple of things...

If this is the case, the best of 60 Minutes, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Byron York, Eli Lake, Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent (and for that matter, what we read in, say New Yorker, Mother Jones, Harpers, The Nation, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.) is not journalism. In fact, no investigative journalism can be journalism, because it's all meant to expose folks with something to hide. The truth is, most Virginian's don't know about George Allen's racism (or even that he was a former Governor/Senator, for that matter). They also don't know Allen is on Gllespie's campaign. By asking the question, I convey a lot of information that at least some Virginians will find useful when deciding at the voting booth. As for #3, I would say that if Gillespie ever answered the questions, you are right - it would be activism rather than journalism to continue to ask the question. But... He's avoided that question for as long as I've been asking it.

I'd say this too: the best journalism is that which upholds the mission of the 4th Estate - the check on the power of the three branches of government. If you want good people in government, you should want aggressive media flushing out the candidate's weaknesses. And that applies to both sides. I'm a Democrat, so who better to put the GOP candidate to the test? And, for the good of the Commonwealth, I'd like to see a Republican doing what I do on the other side. An accountability media is crucial to a functional democracy.

I didn't want to address the Brietbart or O'Keefe part of your comment because it's unnecessarily demeaning and insulting. But I'm afraid if I leave it hanging, it'll be interpreted as acceptance on my part.

Both Brietbart and O'Keefe are liars. Not in all of their work, but in much of it, and in much of their presentation. Brietbart was responsible for the unbelievable egregious Shirley Sherrod hit, for example. O'Keefe has used unsavory practices to do some work that is of questionable legitimacy (NPR, NYT hits), but he's also presented his work in false context (ACORN, Robert Creamer). Both entities have shown, repeatedly, a willingness to mislead in pursuit of partisan gains. I have never, and will never, do that. At least not intentionally. And that, I think, is what separates journalists from something less ethical (I don't want to smear activists by using the term to describe O'Keefe and Brietbart).

Bless your heart, you're not doing investigative journalism.

I ask again, are you credentialed -- WITH A HARD PASS (any clown can get a day pass -- from the press galleries on Capitol Hill or the White House or a federal agency?

This, alone, is why you're not a journalist: "By asking the question, I convey a lot of information that at least some Virginians will find useful when deciding at the voting booth." Legitimate journalists don't do ask leading questions. Probing questions, sure. Good followups, sure. Aimed at getting truth and information, absolutely. But you don't try to "convey" information to others with questions. You convey information with ANSWERS. And in order to get answers, you have to do more than just stalk interview targets with the intention of berating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike Stark here, the reporter.


1. After Charlottesville, Mr. Gillespie, why is George Allen on your campaign? You know, the former governor that kept a Confederate Flag and a noose in his office... The guy that refused to sign a bill making MLK's birthday a state holiday, but did commemorate Confederate Day. The guy that used the n-word prolifically according to several witnesses.

2. After Las Vegas, Mr. Gillespie, why won't you release your NRA questionnaire? You made certain promises to the NRA, and won their endorsement as a result. Why won't you tell Virginian voters exactly what you promised by releasing your questionnaire?

3. You are running MS-13 ads across the state. Have you given any thought to the effect those ads may have on Latino families that are working hard and playing by the rules? My kids go to school with Latino children and my kids see those ads. What should I tell my kids to ensure we don't produce another generation of young adults that are scared of people that look different or speak a different language?

That's what I've been asking him for six weeks. Maybe you can tell me why that isn't journalism and what differentiates your work from mine.

It isn't journalism because these are "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. 1 & 3 are not aimed at extracting information. 2 is a little better. But on the whole, the wording and the tone are aimed at inflicting blows for partisan purposes. Your agenda is to discredit, not to extract information and embarrass him for political means. You're not a journalist -- you are an activist. This is not "citizen journalism." You're no better than Breitbart or James O'Keefe. You can be a provocateur all you want, but this not the way a professional behaves, nor is it more virtuous -- quite the opposite.

A couple of things...

If this is the case, the best of 60 Minutes, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Byron York, Eli Lake, Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent (and for that matter, what we read in, say New Yorker, Mother Jones, Harpers, The Nation, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.) is not journalism. In fact, no investigative journalism can be journalism, because it's all meant to expose folks with something to hide. The truth is, most Virginian's don't know about George Allen's racism (or even that he was a former Governor/Senator, for that matter). They also don't know Allen is on Gllespie's campaign. By asking the question, I convey a lot of information that at least some Virginians will find useful when deciding at the voting booth. As for #3, I would say that if Gillespie ever answered the questions, you are right - it would be activism rather than journalism to continue to ask the question. But... He's avoided that question for as long as I've been asking it.

I'd say this too: the best journalism is that which upholds the mission of the 4th Estate - the check on the power of the three branches of government. If you want good people in government, you should want aggressive media flushing out the candidate's weaknesses. And that applies to both sides. I'm a Democrat, so who better to put the GOP candidate to the test? And, for the good of the Commonwealth, I'd like to see a Republican doing what I do on the other side. An accountability media is crucial to a functional democracy.

I didn't want to address the Brietbart or O'Keefe part of your comment because it's unnecessarily demeaning and insulting. But I'm afraid if I leave it hanging, it'll be interpreted as acceptance on my part.

Both Brietbart and O'Keefe are liars. Not in all of their work, but in much of it, and in much of their presentation. Brietbart was responsible for the unbelievable egregious Shirley Sherrod hit, for example. O'Keefe has used unsavory practices to do some work that is of questionable legitimacy (NPR, NYT hits), but he's also presented his work in false context (ACORN, Robert Creamer). Both entities have shown, repeatedly, a willingness to mislead in pursuit of partisan gains. I have never, and will never, do that. At least not intentionally. And that, I think, is what separates journalists from something less ethical (I don't want to smear activists by using the term to describe O'Keefe and Brietbart).

Bless your heart, you're not doing investigative journalism.

I ask again, are you credentialed -- WITH A HARD PASS (any clown can get a day pass -- from the press galleries on Capitol Hill or the White House or a federal agency?

This, alone, is why you're not a journalist: "By asking the question, I convey a lot of information that at least some Virginians will find useful when deciding at the voting booth." Legitimate journalists don't do ask leading questions. Probing questions, sure. Good followups, sure. Aimed at getting truth and information, absolutely. But you don't try to "convey" information to others with questions. You convey information with ANSWERS. And in order to get answers, you have to do more than just stalk interview targets with the intention of berating them.

So one requirement of a journalist, I suppose, would be integrity and consistency within your arguments. But you keep moving the goal posts. First you ask if I've been credentialed, and I answer by referring to twice in the past month that I've been issued credentials - once at the Gallery, and next at the debate at Wise. Whoops! Now the Gallery day pass isn't good enough, and evidently, only a HARD PASS (I guess it needs to be screamed in all caps too) is sufficient.

Look, if working for NowThis and their 2.5 BILLION MONTHLY VIEWS isn't enough to be considered journalism - notwithstanding the fact that we're reporting on tax policy - then I can't help you, except to remind you that dictionaries exist and you may do well to consult the definition of "journalist" or "reporter". I just took a gander, and I didn't see anything about a HARD PASS being required.

Finally, I'll add that just about every reporter's advocacy organization you can imagine has contacted me to offer assistance in the wake of this incident, so even among our peers, you are lonely in your obtuse obstinance.

Let me ask you something though: If I worked for DailyCaller, would I merit the lofty title of journalist? They have HARD PASSES. So do some clowns from Brietbart. And Newsmax, and CNSNews. I think that with the possible exception of DC, you and I would agree that each of those organizations - though they sell ads and ostensibly meet the credentialing requirements of the Gallery - are embarrassments to the news industry.

So c'mon... Your HARD PASS standard is hollow, ridiculous and pathetic.

Nah... My standard - are you delivering quality information to a significant audience - is much better than any arbitrary HARD PASS requirement which only a vanishingly small minority of reporters have ever had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if this guy is or is not a journalist, an activist, or Ralph Northam's nephew. I don't care how annoying he is. The police simply did not have probable cause to arrest him. They need to be better, more professional than that.

They didn't need "probable cause." He wasn't following their orders and he was disruptive. The charges fit. My guess is he is convicted by a judge.

It really pisses me off when people behave irresponsibly and start whining for first amendment press protections. He needs to choose an argument -- was he a private citizen casually videotaping the parade or was he a member of the press, meeting all of the professional standards associated with that role as prescribed by the Society of Professional Journalists? He can't say "yes" to the latter and the former is squishy given his belligerence.

Reporter- why did you resist the arrest? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he had media credentials to cover Gillespie.

The article is covering its own reporter. I don't trust its reporting.

I'm a real journalist. This isn't how journalists behave. They also don't wear jeans and a hoodie and film with an iPhone and claim to be credentialed press.

The charges were disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The video evidence clearly shows those charges are valid.

BTW, I vote blue. This kind of behavior muddies the water for both journalists AND Democrats.

Adding that Mr Leshan of WUSA - who's been a reporter for them for 22 years - used his I-Phone to camera to record a portion of our interview.

Asking again: are you Eilperin? If so, you do some good work, but you really need to climb down off that high-horse you've been on since the dawn of digital journalism. We're working the same phones you work, developing sources the same way you do, and often (but not always) producing better product than you are. And our agendas, worn on our sleeve for the sake of integrity, allow us to do work you cannot do. The Post (and most ostensibly "down the middle" organizations) would never report on my three questions. Why? Because there aren't sufficiently damning questions to ask Northam, the "other side".

And so far as what I was wearing on a Saturday morning for a piece that I wasn't going to be shown in? Really? You should see what Chris Cillizza wears when he's not in front of the camera.

Finally - I would think that a fundamental attribute of any journalist would be to know what the hell you are talking about before setting the type. You clearly don't know anything about the law because my attorney has been very clear with me: neither of those charges will stand and when this is finished, I will be convicted of nothing.

But that's exactly the type of lofty BS statement I'd expect from a "journalist" that spends more time at cocktail parties schmoozing with the powerful subjects she writes about than actually holding them accountable for their shortcomings.

You ever heard the term "comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable"? That's what you don't do.

Instead you punch down.

Stop it.

Do better.

We've all got our roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if this guy is or is not a journalist, an activist, or Ralph Northam's nephew. I don't care how annoying he is. The police simply did not have probable cause to arrest him. They need to be better, more professional than that.

They didn't need "probable cause." He wasn't following their orders and he was disruptive. The charges fit. My guess is he is convicted by a judge.

It really pisses me off when people behave irresponsibly and start whining for first amendment press protections. He needs to choose an argument -- was he a private citizen casually videotaping the parade or was he a member of the press, meeting all of the professional standards associated with that role as prescribed by the Society of Professional Journalists? He can't say "yes" to the latter and the former is squishy given his belligerence.

Reporter- why did you resist the arrest? Honest question.

I did not resist the arrest. When I attempted to put my phone away (a reflex that lasted perhaps 2 seconds), the police escalated. I think having a mere citizen swearing at them kind of put them in a mood to want to inflict a little embarrassment and pain. I will say, however, that things could have been much worse.

You know, you don't realize what it's like to be policed until you are. I mean, we hear about suspects reaching for their waistbands all the time right? Well, after the fact, I realized that's what it must have looked like to the police in this case. Thankfully, the police knew what I was about because both the campaign (I believe) and I had told them I was a reporter. Thankfully, I wasn't, say, a drug suspect on a poorly lit street. And thankfully, this took place in a public place with tons of witnesses where police couldn't really make me pay for being disrespectful toward them.

In the end, they "showed me who was boss". It was, as I've said, an unlawful arrest that was violent and unnecessary, but not brutal.

Finally... According to VA statute, to be guilty of resisting arrest, one must actually make an attempt to flee the police. I never did that, so I expect to be found not guilty as a matter of law, probably before trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "reporter" that works for a media company founded by a clinton staffer seems like a stalker to me.

Exactly what I was thinking. The police had probably been tipped off about him stalking Gillespie.

Its not stalking if you show up at public events where a candidate is. You might not know this but all campaigns have low level staffers trailing their opponents filming everything they do in case they make a huge gaffe (like the macaca guy). Gillepsie is trying to avoid scrutiny by not publicly announcing his schedule (very unusual for a politician in the last days of a campaign) there was a WaPo article a few days ago with reporters trying to hunt him down.