The Republican National Convention 2008

[mrjohnchimpo]

I gotta say, I thought Palin’s speech was pretty amazing (along with Guiliani’s…the rest were pretty blah, but like I said bet Romney’s running again in 2012).

I still think this was a perfect choice for McCain and for the party. This lady is basically the epitome of the tough, no-nonsense, working-class, true American woman that the conservatives have been looking for. The kind of woman that realizes that there is a certain way that the world has to work, and is willing to fight for it. Any doubt that she was some sort of a foil for Hillary went out the window. They are nothing alike, and if someone votes for her just cause she's a woman, then they're an idiot.

On a semi-funny note, I always find it odd watching politicians giving a speech in a packed house filled with no one that disagrees with them (even though in this case I also don’t disagree - McCain/Palin 2008!). It happened last week with the pompous liberals and it’s happening this week. Hooray for cheering! :p

[poofdogg]

It happened last week with the pompous liberals and it’s happening this week. Hooray for cheering! :p

Yea Pompous Liberals!!! I always love sweeping overgeneralizations about an entire group of people. :)

Either way...cheer, cheer, cheer!

[Ag Au]

yeah, the rnc rocks.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

[mrjohnchimpo]

I always love sweeping overgeneralizations about an entire group of people. :)


everybody loves sweeping overgeneralizations! :lol:

[slam]

it was a good speech. lots of attacking, well delivered. it certainly seemed more geared to the true blue republicans, as opposed to the independents who might swing their way. i guess that could be said of her whole nomination.

[mrjohnchimpo]

yeah, the rnc rocks.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

I don't see what the big deal is. Arrests were made at the DNC too...arrests are made at both every election season of protesters and reporters.

[slam]

I don't see what the big deal is.

amy goodman was not a protester. she's a journalist who was covering the protests.

[zero2056]

There are reporters in Iraq and covering Hurricanes putting their lives in actual danger, and we get to listen to this lady whine about how she was treated because she was in an angry mob protesting a scheduled political convention.

Suck it up Amy.

[slam]

and we get to listen to this lady whine about how she was treated because she was in an angry mob protesting a scheduled political convention.

yeah. stupid journalists, covering news. how dare they? what gives a bunch of people who gather to protest something they don't like the right to have their protest heard?

[zero2056]

I knew that argument was going to come out.

I don't know what actually happened (and you don't either) on the circumstances involving the protesters and that reporter.

None of us know how we'd react, because none of us have been facing 10,000 people yelling and screaming at you (now a riot cop) with only a chain link fence separating you from them. Until anybody on this board has been in SWAT gear with the duty to make sure an unruly mob of protesters does just that, nothing but protest, then I'll accept someone's viewpoint on the situation.

People make the wrong decision sometimes, but I wasn't there, you weren't there. This is just yet another example of the liberal media taking great offense to something minor, and without a doubt having all of the details. Anything to make sure the golden boy gets to keep his moral high ground, halo without tarnish.

[mrjohnchimpo]

amy goodman was not a protester. she's a journalist who was covering the protests.

i said protesters and reporters. some abc reporter was arrested at the DNC as well. bunch of whiners. if you don't want to get arrested, don't scream in the face of a cop.

[JVO]

yeah, the rnc rocks.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

From what I heard the protesters at the DNC are the exact same as the protesters at the RNC (at least the ones causing trouble). They are the Anarchist club or something. That reporter and producer were released almost immediately and if you are walking next to people who are throwing rocks and setting things on fire, and the cops have told you to disperse, I have no problem with the coppers throwing you in the paddy wagon until they get things sorted out. The protesters were promising to "set fire to the arena" I would say that gives the cops some justification to disband people however they see fit. It was funny hearing the interview with that squeaky voiced producer whining about the cops. If you don't want to get arrested then disband when the coppers tell you to. I am not a big fan of either journalists or cops, but in this scenario I side with the coppers. I don’t have a problem with journalists marching with protestors in order to get the best story, but I do have a problem with them crying when they get thrown in the paddy wagon by coppers who are trying their best to keep the peace.

[False Alarm]

i thought this part was pretty funny:

There was a photographer right next to me who was also taken down pretty violently. He was screaming he was press, as well. He had credentials. He kept saying he was a photographer for the New York Post. And quite funnily, he said, “For Christ’s sake, it’s a Republican paper!” But that didn’t seem to matter.
also reinforces that this ain't really a partisan issue.


---------------------------------
I don't know what actually happened (and you don't either) on the circumstances involving the protesters and that reporter.
i think the premise of the conversation is that what the reporters are reporting is true, especially since there looks to be extensive audio and video footage of the arrests. i guess if that stuff turned out to be fabricated or not really exist you'd have a point, but why the fuck would they lie about having the footage? certainly context issues might come up--maybe the one chick shivved the cop right before she started rolling the tape--but given what info we have it seems silly in this case not to give the reporters' story some credit.

None of us know how we'd react, because none of us have been facing 10,000 people yelling and screaming at you (now a riot cop) with only a chain link fence separating you from them. Until anybody on this board has been in SWAT gear with the duty to make sure an unruly mob of protesters does just that, nothing but protest, then I'll accept someone's viewpoint on the situation.

this is idiotic. none of us are trained riot police. if we were and acted in an unprofessional way, i think we'd expect to get fired. are we now allowed to speculate about the proper course of action only in our chosen professions? you ever served in the military, zero? if not, i hope you didn't have an opinion on the abu ghraib court martials. wartime is stressful: your viewpoint is unacceptable unless you've experienced it, right?

people are fired or convicted of crimes because of acts performed under duress all the time--often by peeps who ain't experienced the same shit. you are against this as a rule? how the fuck is no one else able to process all the facts of the case and form a valid conclusion about it just cuz they haven't undergone a similar experience themselves?

[zero2056]

FA

I should preface this with the fact that I have an utter disdain for cops and reporters.

When it comes to mobs of protesters, it seems like their is a "guilt by association", especially if you're standing right in the middle of them. Most reporters would be on the outskirts of the mob reporting to TV crews. I doubt that those people were affected.

I would defend my statement and claim that it is not idiotic. I have no idea what the standard protocol for a cop is and when he is allowed to use force to remove someone from the premises whether it be during a protest or a drunken shouting match outside of a bar. I'm assuming that there is some stated protocols, but much is left up to personal judgment. My guess is, none of the rest of you know what these are either, thus my point. There's a cry of foul play from this reporter, when for all I know, this reporter shouldn't have been where she was if she didn't want to catch some shit.

As far as I'm aware, the constitution allows for "Peaceful Protesting", not the ability to threaten to set fire to a convention hall with 20,000 people in it, throw rocks at armed police officers, or threaten any other sort of violence. Go ahead and try that next time you see a cop, and see what response you get from them. Now multiply you by 10,000, and see if there might be some rubber bullets or tear gas released.

These people were in the wrong. The reporter had bad judgment and was caught up in the middle of it. She got thrown to the ground, and was pinned there for a few minutes. Big fucking deal.

Not sure how your Abu Ghraib comment is even close to being relevant. 1) I'm not in the military. 2) Civil rights in a time of war are restricted. I'm assuming you're talking about the ass naked pyramid of men and things like that? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Yea. You, me, and whoever else are entitled to an opinion about it, but your, mine and whoever else's opinion doesn't amount to a pile of shit on it either.

[JVO]

Yeah, for me hearing a reporter bitch about being detained at a protest where people are throwing rocks and burning stuff, and in which the cops told the crowd to disperse is kinda like somebody who is running with the bulls in Spain bitching because they got a horn up their ars. I mean what did you expect was going to happen? Cops have a way of getting pissed when people start throwing rocks at them as a way to impress the camera people and it is not unreasonable for them to detain everybody and then figure it all out once the violence has stopped.

Nice quote Zero. I have been dreading the Republicans throwing that community organizer thing in Obama's face for a long time. I was just wondering why it took so long. As soon as Palin started her little riff, I was like oh no this is going to hurt.

[False Alarm]

I would defend my statement and claim that it is not idiotic. I have no idea what the standard protocol for a cop is and when he is allowed to use force to remove someone from the premises whether it be during a protest or a drunken shouting match outside of a bar. I'm assuming that there is some stated protocols, but much is left up to personal judgment. My guess is, none of the rest of you know what these are either, thus my point.
your point is dross. we don't need to know the fine points of the protocol or like go to the police academy or some shit. it's possible for normal citizens to recognize excessive force. it's possible for normal citizens to recognize an unwarranted arrest. it's possible for those normal citizens to argue about it on a message board like the knuckleheads they are. given the facts available to us, it seems silly to dispute the dubious nature of these arrests.

There's a cry of foul play from this reporter, when for all I know, this reporter shouldn't have been where she was if she didn't want to catch some shit.
there's no "for all you know." it was a public protest; people were allowed to be there. reporters were allowed to be there with them. that's what we know. that's one reason the arrests look shitty.

As far as I'm aware, the constitution allows for "Peaceful Protesting", not the ability to threaten to set fire to a convention hall with 20,000 people in it, throw rocks at armed police officers, or threaten any other sort of violence. Go ahead and try that next time you see a cop, and see what response you get from them. Now multiply you by 10,000, and see if there might be some rubber bullets or tear gas released.
you have a firm grasp on the obvious. doesn't mean for a second that riot police can do no wrong.

These people were in the wrong.
you just said that we don't know what was proper protocol here--thus your point, remember? yet two grafs later you know that the reporters were in the wrong. makes sense.

The reporter had bad judgment and was caught up in the middle of it. She got thrown to the ground, and was pinned there for a few minutes.
and then had her nose broken. and then was arrested, charged, and detained.


Big fucking deal.
i never said it was a big deal. i don't care about this case, and in fact i think it'd be funny if some facts came out wherein the reporters really deserved what happened to em. but, given the facts we have, i'm more just flabbergasted at your obstinate insistence that the cops were right in this case and that unless you've been in their shoes it's unacceptable to say otherwise.

Not sure how your Abu Ghraib comment is even close to being relevant. 1) I'm not in the military. 2) Civil rights in a time of war are restricted. I'm assuming you're talking about the ass naked pyramid of men and things like that? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
it's an analogy, see. some of those soldiers were court martialed, much like some of these cops could theoretically get fired. but according to your line of thought--"Until anybody on this board has been in SWAT gear with the duty to make sure an unruly mob of protesters does just that, nothing but protest, then I'll accept someone's viewpoint on the situation"--no one's viewpoint on whether these cops should be disciplined is acceptable unless they've been a riot cop. which is like sayin a person can't have an acceptable viewpoint about how and whether soldiers should be disciplined unless they've been a soldier. which is of course a wack position.

Yea. You, me, and whoever else are entitled to an opinion about it, but your, mine and whoever else's opinion doesn't amount to a pile of shit on it either.
well yeah. every single word ever written on B2P and $1.49'll get you a 40-oz at my favorite liquor store. that's some insightful shit. slam, larryhead: pack up the board. it's all been for naught.

[False Alarm]

Yeah, for me hearing a reporter bitch about being detained at a protest where people are throwing rocks and burning stuff, and in which the cops told the crowd to disperse is kinda like somebody who is running with the bulls in Spain bitching because they got a horn up their ars. I mean what did you expect was going to happen? Cops have a way of getting pissed when people start throwing rocks at them as a way to impress the camera people and it is not unreasonable for them to detain everybody and then figure it all out once the violence has stopped.
yeah, since there's a possibility of getting a horn up your ass you should totally be happy about it. especially when the bull goring you is actually a human being breaking your face in the midst of your trying to do your job.

i wonder if the reporters chose to cover the protest or got assigned it by their editors. either way i guess it's their fault, right? occupational hazard and all. such a slimeball profession--they deserve what they get.

it's not unreasonable for coppers to detain everyone and figure things out. but the transcripts don't exactly show reporters resisting arrest. detaining the reporters forcefully and charging them is what looks unreasonable from here. you two just like it cuz you see reporters as parasites. (meanwhile, from what i can tell, JVO derives most of his pleasure in life from viewing/listening to/reading politics reportage. nice y'alls.)

[mrjohnchimpo]

reporters ARE pretty much all parasites.

[JVO]

My point wasn’t that the reporters deserved it (although honestly I think they were totally happy about it) only that it is unbelievably naïve for them to be surprised. And it is wrong to call these people “protesters”, they were men in masks and bandanas throwing rocks and setting things on fire. Even if the reporters were sent there by editors I think it is reasonable that they could have left the fray once the “protesters” proved to be criminals and the cops showed up with riot gear and tear gas.

I am with zero on this one, if you are marching with a group of criminals who are destroying public property and threatening to destroy a National Convention then you had better expect that you are in serious danger. The police don’t have time to sort out the combatants from the non combatants when they are being peppered with rocks and flaming pieces of junk and doing so would only put them is a position of extreme vulnerability. If I were a cop, I would assume that any peace loving protesters or media type would have gotten the hell out of dodge once the violence began.

Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the reporters were hoping that the cops would beat them down. They are certainly getting far more national exposure than they would have if they had not decided to march side by side with criminals who were randomly destroying property and mugging for the cameras. After all how can you top, “I wrongly got beat down by the cops despite the fact that I was marching with evil men hell bent on destroying as much of the city as possible”

After saying all of that, I agree with you that it was a shame that these reporters got injured; despite the fact that they knew they were putting themselves in an extremely dangerous position. I guess I am just willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

Do you think the cops were purposely trying to use this as an opportunity to injure reporters or merely that they lost their cool and overacted? I think the two are totally different arguments.

[False Alarm]

reporters ARE pretty much all parasites.
then you gotta ask what their audience is. when you watch fox, pom-poms in hand, and read newsmax every morning, what does that make you? you ain't the host joe.

[zero2056]

I feel as if my comments have offended FA in some way, to a degree other than what I'd expect. Are you a journalist or reporter of some sort?

Have you been wrongfully beaten down by the cops at some point?

Definitely have hit a sore spot.

[zero2056]

Nice quote Zero. I have been dreading the Republicans throwing that community organizer thing in Obama's face for a long time. I was just wondering why it took so long. As soon as Palin started her little riff, I was like oh no this is going to hurt.

It was a part of a "oh no she didn't moment" at the RNC last night. Really, there were multiple parts.

No commentary on my new Avatar showing Obama holding back the waters of New Orleans with his divine will (shamelessly stolen from the Daily Show).

[False Alarm]

My point wasn’t that the reporters deserved it (although honestly I think they were totally happy about it) only that it is unbelievably naïve for them to be surprised. And it is wrong to call these people “protesters”, they were men in masks and bandanas throwing rocks and setting things on fire. Even if the reporters were sent there by editors I think it is reasonable that they could have left the fray once the “protesters” proved to be criminals and the cops showed up with riot gear and tear gas.

I am with zero on this one, if you are marching with a group of criminals who are destroying public property and threatening to destroy a National Convention then you had better expect that you are in serious danger. The police don’t have time to sort out the combatants from the non combatants when they are being peppered with rocks and flaming pieces of junk and doing so would only put them is a position of extreme vulnerability. If I were a cop, I would assume that any peace loving protesters or media type would have gotten the hell out of dodge once the violence began.

Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the reporters were hoping that the cops would beat them down. They are certainly getting far more national exposure than they would have if they had not decided to march side by side with criminals who were randomly destroying property and mugging for the cameras. After all how can you top, “I wrongly got beat down by the cops despite the fact that I was marching with evil men hell bent on destroying as much of the city as possible”

After saying all of that, I agree with you that it was a shame that these reporters got injured; despite the fact that they knew they were putting themselves in an extremely dangerous position. I guess I am just willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

Do you think the cops were purposely trying to use this as an opportunity to injure reporters or merely that they lost their cool and overacted? I think the two are totally different arguments.
i ain't read other reports on the protest. the original link describes it as a 10,000-strong peaceful protest. says some splinter groups broke off that were violent and that cops then busted out the riot gear on them and everyone else, peaceful protesters too. it's unclear to me whether these reporters were accompanying one of the violent groups. i guess i agree that that'd be inviting some shit, though i ain't sure it warrants the criminal charges the reporters are facing.

i do agree that the reporters are probably delighted about what happened. (though i like to believe they weren't hoping to get their asses kicked. call me naive if you like; i'll call you cynical.) no way it ain't gonna help their careers.

i do find it humorous that you and zero, both professed cop haters, give the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one. i guess y'alls' hatred of reporters cancels it out. me, i got no beef with either, though cops make me real nervous and shit.

i don't think it was a calculated thing by the cops. if they end up being in the wrong i'd ascribe it to losing their cool and overreacting.

and my march toward 1,000 continues...

[False Alarm]

I feel as if my comments have offended FA in some way, to a degree other than what I'd expect. Are you a journalist or reporter of some sort?

Have you been wrongfully beaten down by the cops at some point?

Definitely have hit a sore spot.
i ain't offended joe. just trying to pad my post count.

[mrjohnchimpo]

i ain't offended joe. just trying to pad my post count.

oh, didn't you hear? we increased the Council of Windbags post count to 1100. :eek:

[Lori Burger]

Here's my thoughts on what I saw last night:

First, Guiliani's speech was nothing more than fear-based rhetoric. I can't believe people buy into that emotion-based and logic-lacking garbage. He said nothing credible and claimed that the Republicans are somehow correct because they help the economy (where's the proof of that??) and protect us (what about 9/11)? It's scare tactics, and embarrassing to me that many people buy into it.

And Palin, she takes the cake. First, she speaks slowly and avoids big words so that everyone can understand her (good strategic move, really). Her tone is extremely smug and assumptive, which is a bit jarring considering that before a week ago most Americans didn't even know who she was. Then she talks about her family with pride, especially her son who's about to go fight in the war. But her daughter is off limits because discussing her doesn't fit into Palin's agenda, I'm assuming? And she tells scores of lies about Obama and about the Democratic party in general, but because a brazen woman says these things, they are somehow viable?

But the most offensive thing to me about her is how she parades her good looks around when it's convenient for her but gets offended if anyone accuses her of such. Did anyone see those 'hot chick' pins that many of her supporters were wearing? How offensive to women to insinuate that a woman's attractiveness is reason enough to elect her into the second-most important position in the US?! Kennedy was a good looking man: did he ever have "hot dude" pins made for his supporters to wear? But I suppose I'm a sexist for even pointing that out. I tell my female students about how it's nice if they look good, but they are capable of doing everything mentally that a man could, and THIS is what makes them powerful, not their sex appeal. I wish someone would tell Palin this, because she's making us all look bad.

I have never loved HRC, but at least she talked about stuff that mattered. This woman is NO HRC: she doesn't even agree in a woman's right to choose. She doesn't agree with equal work meaning equal pay, and she is an ultra-conservative in every opinion I heard her state. She also neglected to mention in any way how she would help to protect those who are struggling in this country. If some people don't realize that bringing this smug, self-righteous woman onto the ticket was in a very obvious way a tactic of the Republicans to take the HRC voters from the Democratic party, I suggest that they open their eyes.

[bubz_bluez]

lori i agree with everything you had to say about this woman... im going to see if i can find something about this pin you were talking about

bubz

[Ag Au]

i guess i missed out on some stuff yesterday.
so amy goodman is from democracy now! which is a radio newsgt program. she covers world news and is one of the most informed people on the world stage that i can think of. she is the very last person to ever "whine" about getting hurt by police or military or whoever is using the force. this isn't the first time this veteran journalist has been knocked down. (east timor anyone?) she's just standing up for her and everyone else's right to protest injustices, and in this country her right as a journalist to cover such events. to liken her to the protesters is belittling to what she was actually trying to accomplish. which is coverage of the events surrounding the excessive use of force in this country. people are no longer able to assemble the way they once were. now you need permits and times and dates and other bullshit, which if you don't have for some reason you will probably be harassed and sent to jail. or like the rnc, even with the proper permits still get beaten.
my thoughts are that zero and jvo didn't read the whole transcript if at all. if they did they wouldn't have sounded so off base and maybe noticed the part about the secret service taking their press passes for the convention center. to me that was the most oppressive part of it. they were being excluded from an event i'm frankly surprised they even got credentials for considering how tightly republicans have been controlling their events for the last 8 years.

[Ag Au]

"Going to where the silence is. That is the responsibility of a journalist: giving a voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken, and beaten down by the powerful." - Amy Goodman

jvo, zero - what could possibly be wrong with someone taking this stance?

[JVO]

"Going to where the silence is. That is the responsibility of a journalist: giving a voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken, and beaten down by the powerful." - Amy Goodman

jvo, zero - what could possibly be wrong with someone taking this stance?

Oh brother! Gag me! These people were hardly silent, forgotten, and beaten down. They were dudes with masks throwing rocks at the cops.

I don't think I can state my case any more clearly than I already have. In the transcript the police (which btw totally cracks me up…I love how the journalists sounds like they are Nelson Mandela or something) told the reporters to move and instead of moving they stayed directly in the line of the police. As soon as they were detained the reporter throws a hissy fit instead of letting the police do their job and sort it out later. She yells, “Press, Press!” (but continues to record because god forbid they miss the money shot despite the fact that the Police instructed them to leave and also btw if they had stopped filming the injury to the face wouldn’t have happened since it was self inflicted) like that is supposed to mean anything to the cops who already told everybody to vacate the area. Then at least 4 separate times, according to the transcript, she ignores instructions given to her by Police officials. The Police told her twice to get on the sidewalk and each time she refused. That alone is enough for a copper to detain you in a dangerous situation like this. She wasn’t arrested for being a journalist; she was arrested because she refused to follow the instructions of Police Officers during a crisis situation. By not following the cop’s instructions and interrupting them in the middle of a crisis because one of their precious reports was detained they made the situation more dangerous for the Police, the peaceful Protesters, and the bystanders. The cops are in riot gear fighting off criminals who are throwing rocks and burning crap at them and all this person does is complain about her people being detained. Well if you were so concerned about that why didn't you get the hell out of there when the police told you to? If I am riding shot gun with a drug dealer it is unreasonable for me to be surprised when the coppers treat me like a criminal if our car is pulled over.

I am obviously all for freedom of the press, but if the cops tell you to leave and you don't then you disserve to be arrested. Having a journalist credential is not a get out of jail free card and it does not mean that you don’t have to follow the law or instructions by a copper just because you have a camera. I don't know if you saw the videos from the protesters but the reporter’s presence was making the situation worse. There were guys posing for the cameras and making sure to destroy stuff in frame so there buddies at home could see it. Certainly this is not the fault of the media, but it is a big reason why the cops were trying to get the crowd to disperse.

The police in Denver handled a situation in almost exactly the same way as the St. Paul police did, so obviously this is standard procedure for coppers. This completely makes sense to me. If I am a cop in riot gear and we announce that everyone must disperse, anybody who does not disperse is in violation of the law.

[Ag Au]

i didn't mean the quote to be in direct association to the rnc, i meant it as a reason to be a journalist. where do you get your news from jvo, if not from some form of journalism or another?

[Ag Au]

and why are you so cynical? i thought you were against cynicism? isn't free speech at the top of the list of american attributes? these people are fighting for them - why aren't you?
i personally want reporters to stand their ground in the face of police. i don't think they were doing anything wrong by merely documenting the process. we need people to "speak truth to power". and i hope this gags you, because you obviously don't respect this right. if reporters are just supposed to step aside when the police step in we have no way of knowing how they abuse their "discretionary" power.

[False Alarm]

In the transcript the police...told the reporters to move and instead of moving they stayed directly in the line of the police.
yeah--and they're also yelling asking where to go and yelling that they can't move, and if you read the reporters' accounts you see that they were following the police action and the crowd and when they got to an intersection got hemmed in by two more walls of police so that they were backed into a parking lot with the crowd. the chick had a car directly behind her when the cops were yelling at her to move. it ain't like she fucking defied them. she couldn't GO anywhere. then they tackled her.

She yells, “Press, Press!” (but continues to record because god forbid they miss the money shot despite the fact that the Police instructed them to leave and also btw if they had stopped filming the injury to the face wouldn’t have happened since it was self inflicted) like that is supposed to mean anything to the cops who already told everybody to vacate the area.
first, seriously? you expect her to stop filming? these people's jobs are to get fucking footage that works as a story. and instead of giving her credit for trying to do her job well, you smear her and in effect call her a bottomfeeder...as you soak up the news cycle.

second, when you're holding a camera and someone tackles you and the camera bashes your face, the injury is not self-inflicted, even if you feel she shouldn't have been there or been rolling.


Then at least 4 separate times, according to the transcript, she ignores instructions given to her by Police officials. The Police told her twice to get on the sidewalk and each time she refused. That alone is enough for a copper to detain you in a dangerous situation like this. She wasn’t arrested for being a journalist; she was arrested because she refused to follow the instructions of Police Officers during a crisis situation. By not following the cop’s instructions and interrupting them in the middle of a crisis because one of their precious reports was detained they made the situation more dangerous for the Police, the peaceful Protesters, and the bystanders. The cops are in riot gear fighting off criminals who are throwing rocks and burning crap at them and all this person does is complain about her people being detained. Well if you were so concerned about that why didn't you get the hell out of there when the police told you to?
you are now conflating the shes. no one ignored anything four times before being arrested. but basically you’re talking about amy goodman here. did you watch the fucking video of her arrest? there ain’t no one throwin shit at those cats, ain’t no burnin. she was interviewin some alaska peeps at the convention when her peeps got arrested. when goodman was arrested, either the conflict had basically ended or the heated part of it was taking place far away. she wasn’t interrupting shit. ain’t no crisis in that shot g. yeah, she was arrested for not following the cop’s instructions; given the circumstances, the cop was also being unreasonable in ignoring her as she tried to do right by her “precious reporters.” the cops are not fighting anyone nearby. no one’s throwin shit at em. she had a right to ask after her subordinates. suggesting that she should “get the hell out of there” and leave her peoples is fucked up. i’d hate to have you as my supervisor.

I am obviously all for freedom of the press, but if the cops tell you to leave and you don't then you disserve to be arrested.
even though it’s already established that they literally, physically, could not leave? what the fuck?

Having a journalist credential is not a get out of jail free card and it does not mean that you don’t have to follow the law or instructions by a copper just because you have a camera.
don’t mean you’re guilty of a felony charge of inciting a riot either. that's what they being charged with.


I don't know if you saw the videos from the protesters but the reporter’s presence was making the situation worse. There were guys posing for the cameras and making sure to destroy stuff in frame so there buddies at home could see it. Certainly this is not the fault of the media, but it is a big reason why the cops were trying to get the crowd to disperse.
as you mentioned, that ain’t the media’s fault, but I ain’t seen no video of people posing in salazar’s camera and have no reason to think these reporters exacerbated shit. gimme a link or something.

The police in Denver handled a situation in almost exactly the same way as the St. Paul police did, so obviously this is standard procedure for coppers. This completely makes sense to me. If I am a cop in riot gear and we announce that everyone must disperse, anybody who does not disperse is in violation of the law.
i've seen nothing about reporters being arrested during protests at the DNC. an ABC reporter was arrested under totally different circumstances. in fact, the reporters here talk about how in 2004 the NYC PD acknowledged press passes when there was confusion and didn’t just scoop the reporters in with everyone else (and charge them with felonies) during protests at the RNC. so it ain’t AT ALL obvious that anything here’s standard procedure.

[False Alarm]

i should add that i do feel you JVO on the whininess and sense of entitlement in the reporters' accounts. it can get annoying. but it don't mean for a second that all this shit's on them.

[bangg trimm]

without being a personal critique of anyone involved (as so many pointed out, we weren't ACTUALLY there), the amy goodman story serves as an interesting barometer for our society.



it reveals a society in which emotion trumps logic. everytime. witness any effective persuasive speech, any tumultuous time in your life, or any time you are facing a crowd of shouting protesters OR a crowd of riot police. we be animals in fancy clothes.


it reveals a society in which we give slogans and verbiage that police are trained to protect and serve, but in actually they sometimes can't keep their shit together long enough to do their job properly.

we all mess up. but who pays the bills?



a society in which any discussion about rights is immediately gainsayed by the the apotheosis of the police officer.



a society in which authoritarian practice is just under the very fine veneer of rights and responsibilities... to the degree that you are a dirty (insert epithet) if you even dream of saying something to the contrary.



a society which values the efforts of the public servants in all sorts of crisis situations--often without bothering to decide on their own if there was, in fact, a "crisis". who gets to decide these days anyway? and who is held accountable?

hey chicago, what about the DNC in 1968 where then mayor Richard Daley is quoted as saying "Gentlemen, get the thing straight once and for all — the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder." a barometer for our society.



a society that still thinks along the lines of "it looks weird/scary/unfamiliar so we better kill it/neutralize it/use force to shut it the hell up"



a society in which the only news about a protest (and i've been to a handful) is (1) a gross under-reporting of the actual number of people present and (2) the concentration of copy on the questionable actions of the relatively few who are breaking windows and the utter neglect on the complex social arena of debate, teach-ins, workshops, and peaceful counter demonstration



a society which is much more interested in creating and sensationalizing bogeymen in masks of any kind (riot helmets or black bandannas) than ever truly delving into the stories of why the people present were there in the first place. squeaky scary-looking wheel gets the demonizing grease.



a society in which the press of the mighty and the force of the mighty will do anything to keep their stature, regardless of the morality of the act.



a society which is desperate need of alternate viewpoints from that of the mighty so that we can all move forward. bio-diversity, y'all.



i think this is where persons like amy goodman come in. from the transcript, i see nothing to indict her or her comrades for. and from her career of commitment to human rights and intelligent lines of questioning in her programming, i think it's unlikely that she in fact did do something untoward.

of course it's possible that if such a thing did happen, the news reported on her own website would never mention

but neither would ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN you name it. they are businesses with a product. let's yell at them next!



IF you truly believe you can't talk about this issue without having been there at the actual scene, fine. get your ass there. or shut the hell up. those are your choices according to your logic.

HOWEVER, I personally believe that there are truths that can be witnessed from only the outside the immediacy of the situation, and some that can only be known from within the situation. the best reports bring those perspectives together into a unity. this dynamic is definitely true in my life, and i would guess is true in yours.

so i choose to talk about it, and i'm not terribly afraid to be wrong.
what does terrify me is a lack of debate, a lack of conversation, a lack of exchange.
what terrifies me is the auto-justification and self-perpetuation of the status quo, the mind that says, in essence "i can see that it exists in this way, so this way must be right".

the world is not a fixed artifact. we are not fixed products.

am i a windbag yet? :thumbsup:

bangg

[zero2056]

"Going to where the silence is. That is the responsibility of a journalist: giving a voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken, and beaten down by the powerful." - Amy Goodman

jvo, zero - what could possibly be wrong with someone taking this stance?

This thread has gone all over the place, and frankly, now I'm just confused.

Amy Goodman is supporting a group of Anarchists who have been beaten down by the powerful? A group that has protested both the RNC and DNC?

Did the riot police tear gas an old ladies bridge club or something? What am I missing?

**Yawn** I'm glad this Amy Goodman got a ton of free press for not being able to follow orders. What a fucking hero.

This reeks of the "Don't Taze Me Bro" guy.

[Ag Au]

bitter bitter. why so bitter?

[JVO]

I have seen and heard so many different perspectives of what happened during this incident that I have no idea what is truth and what is not.

I completely respect the rights of journalists but the first amendment (to me the most important American value) does not give you the right to violate other laws. Let's say you are some crazy celebrity and you are driving down the road at a safe and legal speed. Suddenly a journalist sitting on the side of the road spots you and jumps in their car to haul ass and try to catch up with you. Do you think that the journalist is entitled to throw caution to the wind, exceed the maximum speed limit, and violate all road safety laws? What if a copper spots the journalist violating the law and tries to pull them over? Is that journalist justified to continue to violate the law, ignore the police instructions and continue to create a dangerous situation because they are “Going to where the silence is... giving a voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken, and beaten down by the powerful"? Isn’t that how Princess Diana died? Obviously this situation is different but where do you draw the line? When is a journalist allowed to break the law to cover their story and not get prosecuted for it and when are they not? My answer is that being a journalist is never a justification for violating the law or ignoring police instructions without facing the legal punishment for such actions.

I agree with you that a journalist who is on the front lines covering stories about oppression and the man’s instinct to imprison those who disagree with them is a very noble profession. I am sure that these journalists feel like they are really making a difference and that the world is a slightly better place because of them (which is more than I can say about my profession). I also respect those journalists who stand their ground against forces that they think are acting in an illegal or immoral way in order to document what is happening, BUT what I don’t respect is that after having done this, they bitch because they got arrested. I mean if you choose to be that type of reporter you disserve all of the praise and nobility you can get, but you also must own up to the consequences of your action. I think that being a fireman/woman is just about the most noble profession in the world, but that doesn’t justify them being angry when they get third degree burns on their body. I mean if you didn’t want to get burned don’t run into the fire. Nobility has its price or it wouldn’t be noble.

From my stand point you are the one being cynical. You are basically saying that the St. Paul Police, for no reason and without provocation, physically assaulted American citizens and wrongly imprisoned them for a crime that they did not commit. I guess my question is why do you think the police did this? Do you think that they get their jollies from beating up defenseless journalists? Do you they are all Republicans who hate Liberal reporters and wanted to make them pay by arresting them? Do you think they just panicked, despite all of their training and became wild animals who beat up anyone they came into contact with? I mean you point of view seems to be that the police officers involved were either immoral or incompetent. That seems to be the cynical view point. I am merely saying that I am willing to give the coppers the benefit of the doubt. Really I am sure it would be much easier for the Police to drop all the charges and make a public apology. That would make the entire story go away. But if they choose to actually press charges, despite the Liberal fury this would stoke, then they must feel like they did everything properly.

Ultimately the courts will be the one who decides who is right. I am sure that these journalists won’t have any problems finding an ACLU lawyer who will represent them. If they have a case they can sue the City of St. Paul in a civil court. If they win, then good for them they probably disserved it, but I am betting that the police wouldn’t have gone this far if they didn’t feel like they acted properly.

[bangg trimm]

I'm not sure to whom JVO is responding :huh:


however, some clarifications from me.

my statements are both resultant from the specific incident as well as the huge chain of specific incidents much like this one, here and abroad. i think it is an issue of humans and the exercise of power.

from my understanding, the reporters broke no laws. the police can't write laws as the go on the street, nor is it an absolute that anyone should do anything solely because a police officer tells them to (assuming they are otherwise acting within the law) It is not against the law to peacefully assemble, which at least some of the people in that crowd were doing.

so as far as owning the consequences, i think they are. they are calling out people --police officers-- who took excessive liberties with the law and its excecution with force. it is important call it out and make a fuss to expose the mechanics of force and its use, so that citizens can make empowered decisions and not just follow orders and live in fear.

From my stand point you are the one being cynical. You are basically saying that the St. Paul Police, for no reason and without provocation, physically assaulted American citizens and wrongly imprisoned them for a crime that they did not commit. I guess my question is why do you think the police did this? Do you think that they get their jollies from beating up defenseless journalists? Do you they are all Republicans who hate Liberal reporters and wanted to make them pay by arresting them? Do you think they just panicked, despite all of their training and became wild animals who beat up anyone they came into contact with? I mean you point of view seems to be that the police officers involved were either immoral or incompetent. That seems to be the cynical view point. I am merely saying that I am willing to give the coppers the benefit of the doubt. Really I am sure it would be much easier for the Police to drop all the charges and make a public apology. That would make the entire story go away. But if they choose to actually press charges, despite the Liberal fury this would stoke, then they must feel like they did everything properly.


I think there is a lot of crowd think, mob mentality, panic and fear mixed with a multitude of private biases and pre-emptive strategies in these situations. it also seems to me that police officers can, despite initial merit, get gun boners; the weapon hangs around long enough and you want to use it. you get tired of someone legally yelling at or around you, you threaten with big stick rather than ignoring or addressing the confrontation at the level it is at.

Both sides escalate really easily; the only difference is that the police have the weapons and the protestors do not. therefore, the police are more accountable and held at a higher expectation to only use force when absolutely necessary (and that is why they have the potential to be highly respected members of society--their conditions are different than ours as private citizens. but they have to earn it)


it is interesting to note that state-salaried police are relatively new in our history. I suppose I am differentiating "police" from "army". Hired mercenaries, thugs, Pinkertons, etc. used to be hired by the state, by corporations, or other individuals to effect their ends. Again, the police system as it exists now is resultant of a series of choices made in certain circumstances over a period of time --not handed down to Man by God-- and therefore can and should be anything we need it to be.

there is a much larger, undergirding question in this whole story for me-- which is who has the right to use force on others? when do they have this right? who gets to decide? The government? the CEO? the person who can foot the bill?
what is the difference between a temporary mercenary and a state-hired police officer vis a vis their relationship to force?


i definitely have much more to research on this, and don't want to pretend i know more than i do. Here is a really quick Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) summation

[Ag Au]

they are pressing charges, and we all know that that doesn't mean that they did things properly. why else do defense lawyers exist?
and why do you keep referring to them talking about this as whining and bitching? they are reporting, that is their job. have you seen the video? she didn't do anything expect ask to talk to a superior, and maybe she got too close to them, but not in any threatening way.
but back to an issue that i mentioned earlier, about the secret service taking their press passes. do you not think that was way outside the bounds of legality? i mean, why did they do that other than to undermine and control these people.
i'm not being cynical, i'm just not turning a blind eye. we all know of lots of examples of discretionary power gone awry. which doesn't mean that i hate all cops. but i do hold them accountable.
and to use such an example as paparazzi to compare to amy goodman made me laugh! thanks.

[JVO]

and to use such an example as paparazzi to compare to amy goodman made me laugh! thanks.


Thanks, but my questions go unanswered:

When it is ok for the press to violate the law and not get punished?

and

Why do you think the officers arrested the reporters if not for violations of the law?

[Ag Au]

we aren't talking about the law here, we are talking about discretionary power. bangg has pointed this out several times. just because a police officer tells me to do something, do i have to do it?

here is a lame example of my own: you are getting beaten for being jvo, plain ol jvo, i'm trying to film it to have evidence of this discrimination, a cop says turn the camera off, do i automatically comply? no, i would also get beaten, and we would have no evidence. then we both go to jail or the hospital or both. viola!

i think the officers arrested the reporters because they were probably told to arrest troublesome reporters. it wouldn't be the first time. there's my cynicism for ya. either that or they just go on automatic and can't relate to people as fellow humans anymore. " what - you asked me a question, let me not think of how to respond and just arrest you." problem averted!

i know being a police officer if a very complicated position to be in, and one that takes a certain type of mentality to pull off. so really i have no answers here, but you asked so there you go.

now answer my question about the secret service taking their press passes for the convention.

[False Alarm]

i think this smilie's long overdue in this thread::anarchy:

[JVO]

just because a police officer tells me to do something, do i have to do it?

You don't have to do it, but if you don't do it, don't act surprised when they arrest you.



here is a lame example of my own: you are getting beaten for being jvo, plain ol jvo, i'm trying to film it to have evidence of this discrimination, a cop says turn the camera off, do i automatically comply? no, i would also get beaten, and we would have no evidence. then we both go to jail or the hospital or both. viola!.

I would love it if you kept filming, but I certainly wouldn't expect you to. And if you did keep filming I would not be at all surprised when you got arrested too.


now answer my question about the secret service taking their press passes for the convention.

Of course the secret service took their passes. They were just arrested for ignoring an officer of the peace and helping to incite a riot. From the secret service's perspective this is the exact person you don't want at a convention. Could you imagine if the secret service let them attend and they caused some sort of trouble (I am not assuming that they would only that this is a consideration the secret service have to make as part of their job)? The secret service would be condemned by millions of people for letting a known rioter onto the convention floor just minutes after being released from jail. From the secret service's perspective they don't care if she is guilty or not, that is not part of their job. They only care that they have shown the potential (even if it is slight) to be a security risk. It is the job of secret service agents to jump in front of bullets that are meant for somebody else. I don't think it is unreanable that they are a little touchy about who they let in.

This is my favorite part of that article/testimony:

"We raced out and just ran down the street. I even stopped a police officer. I said, “Get me to that site. Our reporters have been arrested.” But he didn’t comply"

No! Really? You announced that your reporters had been arrested and demanded that a police officer drop everything in the middle of a riot and get you to the site and he didn't comply. He must have missed the day at the Police Acadmy when they taught that random members of the media are allowed to bark orders to Police Officers.

You can also totally tell that the reporters were being as big a pain in the ass as possible asking everybody for their badge numbers and names. Obviously they were planning a law suit the very instant anything hapened. If they had just kept their cool the coppers probably would have released them with no charges.

I totally respect your view on this (both AA and FA) I guess you are naturally cynical toward the police and I am naturally cynical toward media types. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Somebody ought to keep tabs with this and keep us posted on what the courts decide. I suspect they would get a jury trial if it went to court and it would be interesting to see how they decided.

[bangg trimm]

"riot" is a loaded word which is often levied differently by the police than by protestors.

sure, if there was an actual "riot" that might be some rationale for the police action. in this case, i haven't seen all the information. perhaps there was a riot. i seriously doubt it.

it's in minnesota, so let's take snow or cold as an example. Someone from minnesota saying something is "cold" is much different than someone from los angeles saying something is "Cold". there could be as much as a 30 degree difference between the two temperatures.

so when someone who is used to following orders and having people follow theirs --yes i'm referring to the police-- sees a group of people who are stepping out of normal routine by having a protest, raising their voices when they are usually silent, marching in the street (even legally, with permit) when those streets are obviously meant for cars, i would argue that this hypothetical police officer will see "riot" much sooner than i ever would.

let's extend the hasty metaphor. in minneapolis, when it snows, the highway department knows what to do and the efficient way to do it to help maintain the safe flow of traffic. drivers are relatively skilled in dealing with snowy roads when driving. by contrast, in portland, when it snows, people have no clue what to do. tons of people can't drive safely in it, because it's more rare.

so, if our society had a broader culture of vocalizing against injustice, a more real sense of participatory democracy than television encourages, perhaps the authorities would not be so quick to wig out on people when it happens at all, but save the tear gas for when it fucking counts. a real fucking riot. (not that i actually want one)

so yes, i am cynical about the police, but not because i trust the media. i am cynical about the police because i know a young woman who was acting in full compliance with the law but was singled out by a police officer in a protest and had her legs broken by the officer despite her attempts to comply with the officer's requests. she is suing that officer for the multiple hospital trips she had to make. i am cynical about the police because the biggest fuckups in my high school class became police officers. i am cynical about the police because it attracts people who are interested in wielding power and weapons. i am cynical about the police because they are by and large a conservative force which is more likely to see "danger" and "riot" when people stand up and stop accepting the loads of bullshit in life (peacefully expressed or not) than they are to see people expressing themselves under the 1st amendment. i am cynical about the police because in terms of dealing with crowds, their training apparently hinges on preemptive strategies or wholesale arrests. i am cynical about the police because many i have met in my life have been power trippers, getting off on the fact that you have to do what they say. i am cynical about the police because this has been the case with civil disobedience for decades. i am cynical about the police because they tools of the local or state government which are typically tools of big money.

but that's me.

[Ag Au]

go bangg.
i'm with you.

participatory democracy, there it is. thanks for dusting that one off.

[False Alarm]

just an update that charges against goodman and her peoples were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors about two weeks ago, then dropped altogether about a week ago.

:anarchy: