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.
Not him but if you watch the video its very clear that he did NOT resist the arrest, he behaved like any normal person would when being unexpectedly piled on by police.
The charges will be dropped--he was arrested for cursing in public and that's not a criminal offense-- and the police officers involved will have their actions reviewed by internal affairs.
The police can't just arrest someone because his presence is embarassing a politician. That's third world BS.
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.
Thanks for answering. I will say that watching this (and I am not commenting of the fairness of the arrest), it did look like a resistance and when you tried to put your hand in your pocket that was pretty much guaranteeing a rough arrest. No offence but you seemed to be getting little obnoxious getting in his face but I hope you were OK and not hurt.
Also, In today's world there is a blurry line between blogger/reporter so I am not sure why all the hoopla about credentials.
I don't know this reporter's backstory or have read his blog, but I would hope he is just as determined in getting answers from BOTH sides. Democrat and Republican politicians are different sides of the same corrupt coin.
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.
No, dude. I'm not Mark Hallperin. I don't even know the guy. And I don't understand your fixation on that. But, it does say a LOT about your mentality -- you clearly go into things with assumptions and look to prove a headline. That's not journalism.
As for wearing your agenda on your sleeve -- thanks for providing my point. You're not a journalist. You're not looking for truth -- you're trying to prove a point. Ridiculous.
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.
No, dude. I'm not Mark Hallperin. I don't even know the guy. And I don't understand your fixation on that. But, it does say a LOT about your mentality -- you clearly go into things with assumptions and look to prove a headline. That's not journalism.
As for wearing your agenda on your sleeve -- thanks for providing my point. You're not a journalist. You're not looking for truth -- you're trying to prove a point. Ridiculous.
I didn't ask if you were Halperin. I thought you may be Juliet Eilperin of the WaPo because she's been hostile to encroachment by digital media and bloggers in the past.
Interesting that you don't think there's space for advocacy journalism, and I think that's tremendously revealing. It sounds a lot to me like you think journalists should all be perfect mirrors, with utterly no personal bias. I think you're chasing fool's gold, and if that's what you hold yourself out to be, you're beyond help. There's nobody capable of pure objectivity. Certain organizations strive for it, but it truly limits what they can do. I say again: if it weren't for ShareBlue and organizations like us, you wouldn't have anyone bringing my three questions to the public's attention, except perhaps, on the editorial page. (You still haven't told me: is John Fund a journalist? Or Peggy Noonan? Or Paul Krugman? Or Nick Kristoff? Or Tom Friedman? How about Byron York? Eli Lake? David Corn?)
Speaking of Eilperin... She's got a story in today's Post about EPA administrator Scott Pruitt attending a fancy corporate retreat with representatives of the chemical industry he's charged with regulating. If she were to attend a Pruitt press conference and ask him if he thinks there's a conflict or appearance of a conflict, would that be journalism? I mean, the answer is obvious before the question is asked, correct? Kind of like my question about George Allen being on the campaign?
Look, I don't expect an answer, because I don't think you can answer without entirely blowing up your argument you've so assiduously crafted with bricks made out of HARD PASSES.
Yeah, my beat - my primary job - is to expose the failures of Republicans. I saw above that someone wants me to do the same with Democrats, and I have held them accountable too in the past. But that too was from the perspective of a progressive; I worked to expose Democratic behaviors that were unjustifiably conservative. Here's the thing though: I've never suggested that I'm doing anything else. I've worn my motivations, perspective, bias... whatever you want to call it... on my sleeve. That's called honesty and it's not ridiculous.
I tend to agree with you about DailyCaller, but I cannot bring myself to go all the way to saying they shouldn't be credentialed. They've got a Fox News problem: much of what they do is dishonest, but some of what they do is real shoe-leather reporting. So I'd error on keeping them around (although their funding model suggests they may have manipulated/contrived a way to demonstrate financial independence/advertising model). But yeah, I guess what I don't understand is why you spend so much time attacking Shareblue - an organization that reports honestly and is entirely transparent about its agenda - when Fox News fills its broadcast day with claptrap that tragically misinforms its viewers. It seems to me you should want more of ShareBlue and less Fox News. But YMMV.
Anyway, in the end, I get paid to deliver sound, honest, and useful information to the public. That makes me a journalist. You obviously don't have to agree.
NP here. I'm not in journalist, but I would consider what Mr. Stark does as Op-Ed, opinion-based editorial commentary, not journalism. Whether editorial staff should get press passes vs journalists is debateable, but I would not call what Mr. Stark does journalism. Even his own term "advocacy journalism" is misleading. His writing is more propaganda than journalism.
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.
OP reporter is gonna get paid. I hope all you FC taxpayers will be happy about shelling out for this. All because the moronic PD couldn't control itself.
Executive Editor
Jess McIntosh
Democratic strategist, feminist activist, and former communications advisor for Hillary Clinton, EMILY's List, & Sen. Al Franken. Follow her on Twitter @jess_mc.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}