Is the idea now that journalists should only report on events to which they receive an invitation? That’s ridiculous.

She’s inside in one of the photos, acquiring the photos or even crashing imo if you don’t lie or anything to get in is definitely journalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

To be clear, I'm fine with Bowser being outed. But could you please explain how a sentence noting that the reporter was not an invited wedding guest is an attack? It's a statement of fact.

Who cares whether the journalist was invited? What’s the relevance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Where is the lie?

The Mayor did not “officiate an indoor wedding.” The ceremony is clearly outside.

I guess it depends how you define “wedding.” If someone tells me they are going to a wedding, I tend to think that includes the reception, not just the ceremony. In any case, it’s irrelevant to the issue of the mayor’s hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

To be clear, I'm fine with Bowser being outed. But could you please explain how a sentence noting that the reporter was not an invited wedding guest is an attack? It's a statement of fact.

Anonymous wrote:



Where is the lie?

The Mayor did not “officiate an indoor wedding.” The ceremony is clearly outside.

Anonymous wrote:A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

Yep. I love how trashed they are getting in their own replies.

A magazine attacked a journalist for doing journalism.

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Times reporter is stretching the truth to a degree:

Meanwhile, the actual wedding:




The reporter didn't need to lie in her Tweet. But I guess she's in the business of selling clicks.

Of course, we get to real motivation of the reporter - self publicity:

Where is the lie?

So is crashing a wedding supposed to be a grave sin now? Lol.

Why would her people at legs to this story by having it rehashed. Not smart in my book.

This is not remotely an attack. This is reporting.

The Washington Times reporter is stretching the truth to a degree:

Meanwhile, the actual wedding:




The reporter didn't need to lie in her Tweet. But I guess she's in the business of selling clicks.

Of course, we get to real motivation of the reporter - self publicity:

1) I wouldn't classify this as "attacking."
2) Using the phrase "security blockaded the free press" to describe security keeping her away from a guest at a party she wasn't invited to is pretty funny.
3) I think the journalist was in the right here to crash the party and take video, and I guess someone who has the chutzpah to do that is also someone who would describe the subsequent events that way.

About her not wearing a mask. They say the journalist wasn’t invited https://twitter.com/washingtonian/status/1422252606601109509?s=21