This post and the video below was shared with the Copblock Network by Mike Bluehair, a cofounder of Film The Police (FTP) Portland, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.
Date of Incident: November 29, 2014
Individuals Involved: Unknown employees of Portland police
Department involved: Portland Police Department
Department Phone No.: 503-823-3333
During a Ferguson rally on November 29, 2014 two reporters from Film The Police (FTP) Portland were targeted and falsely arrested by Portland police. They were both charged with disorderly conduct! Both reporters were held for more than two hours bound by zip ties that were biting into their wrists. Videographer Robert “Bob” West was transported from jail to a local Hospital.
Shortly before his arrest Bob was injured by a flash bang grenade thrown dangerously close to his feet. A few days later the DA announced that all charges would be dropped against the ten people that were arrested that night. It’s the opinion of FTP Portland that Bob was targeted because of his work as a police accountability activist.
Oregon-Based Police Accountability Groups
- Film The Police Portland – website / YouTube / Bambuser
- Gladstone Cop Block – Facebook
- Gresham Cop Block – Facebook / [email protected]
com - Oregon CopBlock – Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Bambuser / [email protected]
- Portland Copwatch – website
- Rose City Cop Watch – website / (503) 715.1409 / [email protected]
.
No permission is needed to share this post, or any content housed at CopBlock.org. Ideas have consequences – the more good ideas are shared the better we all are. Help fuel our efforts – donate Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65
Kelly is a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who’s been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He’s also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes.
____________________________________________________________________________
Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
First off you are not reporters. Second you were right in the middle of the protest. You were no different than the people in the protest that were using their cellphones and cameras. When I watched the riots and protests on CNN, CNBC, MSN, ect.. The reporters were nowhere within the riots. They were out of the way. The officers didn’t target you. With all those people around, they wouldn’t know you from Adam.
definition of reporter: a person who reports. Boy you open your mouth and stupid just falls out.
definition of report: an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result ofobservation, inquiry, etc.
Definition of a reporter. Someone who has a college degree in journalism and has ethics.
You mean like the ones on CNN that lie and stage events, those kind of ethics?
Have you look at the articles on copblock? The lies and half truths are staggering.
No more so than the Oregonian or the rest of mainstream media, and they are allowed to call themselves “journalists”.
Again, a reporter has a college degree and ethics. Activists don’t.
Absolutely untrue, JC, on both counts.
No, It’s true on both counts.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr had multiple degrees, had ethics, and was an activist
Yes he did.
Your definition doesn’t mean anything. The 1st amendment doesn’t distinguish who can or can’t be a reporter
YF:
True. But these guys are just clowns who think because they have a camera…..they are special. Remember the goofy CB “press pass” they use to hock on this site? “Being press doesn’t grant extra rights”. Meaning….if you are part of the demonstration that has become unlawful as it is no longer constitutionally protected as it isn’t a “peaceable assembly”….ALL of the assembly is unlawful.
That last part is dangerous to say and I’ll explain why. It happens without fail everytime we see large scale protests, police being sued successfully for violating rights for doing exactly that. 30 people gather, 1 grabs rocks and throws them His actions do not dictate the other 29 persons actions. The police go and arrest them ALL. How do you think that will turn out? I guarantee you their charges get tossed with a ruling the police went to far in arresting the other 29 that were standing there yelling “hell no, we wont go” or whatever they are doing
In other words, what you have said, or how you phrased it gives police ease of mind to feel they are always 100% correct in breaking up every protest because, after all, 1 person was out of bounds and that made it all illegal.
This discussion can easily go back to journalists and their treatment at the hands of police. In my lifetime I have never read a story like that where 2 judges issue rulings (an injunction and an enjoinment) preventing police from interfering with journalists reporting. That’s the facts. If a journalist was in the middle and I am using middle to indicate he is reporting on their activities, you are never going to convince a judge he was a violent protestor because he was near them. He was reporting and that’s what they do. They report. A journalist is supposed to give the people of the world a view into the here and now through their eyes and in Ferguson, the police had an injunction and 2 LEO agencies along with the city were enjoined in a ruling to stop them from interfering with reporters. Journalists who become embedded with military units have to obey strict rules or they are gone. If they pick up any weapon, they have forfeited their journalist status. No matter their feelings, they point the camera and click. Dan rather interviewed Osama Bin Laden. He was in the midst of Al-Qaida. He hardly was part of it and if they decided to line up hundreds of captives and whack them all, he would have to stand there and report on what he saw as that’s his job.
As far as your overall point, i can buy it. I do remember their press pass thingy. Being press doesn’t grant extra rights but they have hardly been treated like everyone else. If the police would have had their way, as in full carte blanche to do what they needed, I do not believe, based on how they handled the press, that they would have allowed any new reporting at all. I base that statement on the journalists, who have been in the business for years and years stating that they worked in some areas that are very bad and never encountered the kind of treatment like they did in Ferguson. Those experiences can’t be ignored. Arrest them all and let the court sort them out is, to a degree, what the police were doing there and it is going to cost them and the city a lot.
YF:
Activist judges are a serious problem IMO..
The 1st is crystal,clear. “Peaceable assemble”. Nothing else is protected.
The activists who wrongly claim innocence when they are engaging in “civil disobedience” simply don’t get that their actions are still unlawful.
Think of all of the stupid “die-ins”. Their rights to protest doesn’t out weigh anyone else’s rights. Their interference and denial,of e rights of others…..makes them wrong.
I actually am going to someplace where protesters have been very active and are trying to shut things down. It’s not in my city…..but I can guarantee that their protests will not be stopping me and denying my rights. Nor scaring me away from going. And that’s is their ultimate goal….to intimidate others.
Now I’m not talking about arresting everyone. But once the assembly has becoming unlawful…..I am Consitutionally bound to protect the rights of the others. That’s what you and the CBers don’t get. My job my very well be to protect others FROM you.
As for the journalists. Again….its behaviors not titles. “Press Passess don’t grant extra rights”
Boy officer you sure sound like an officer…. Protesters ultimate goal is to intimidate others? Fuck you PIG. That’s what you fucking live and thrive off of, mother fucker. You stupid fucking piece of shit PIG. You are so fucking convoluted to this reality. Fuck yourself for saying that shit, you dumb… dumb.. dumb mother fucker. That’s all I got for now, you fucking piece of shit.
3r:
Really? Just an FU? That’s the most intelligent thing you’ve got?
What a disappointment
Honestly, there was a lot more ‘you convoluted piece of shit’ yada yada, but I actually edited it out because you weren’t worth all of it.
Political rights have the highest precedence over all other rights. It’s true in speech and should be in assembly, which can be taken as part of redress too, but we’ve moved as a country to assert protest (assembly) should never interfere with our daily lives, or order, or security. And we’ve done that our entire history; you arent saying anything different than was said during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, you are saying exactly the same, all you left out was “Communist”.
Any assembly impacts others. “Their rights to protest doesn’t out weigh anyone else’s rights. Their
interference and denial,of e rights of others…..makes them wrong.” That would apply at all times, even with a government permit. So all assembly is wrong because it will always deny some other right that you allude to without ever giving that right so we can examine it in the needed perspective.
Ray:
“Highest precedent over all other rights”
Wow.
I’m just gonna sit back and soak in that stupid for a second.
…..
…..
…..
…..
…..
The 1st is CRYSTAL CLEAR. peaceable assembly. Nothing else is protected.
Your “political rights” and “redress” go only towards your government. That is also clearly spelled out for folks like you in the Constitution.
That doesn’t allow you to in anyway affect me in my daily life. Your rights aren’t any more important than mine.
You are one of the narrow goofs that don’t get it that the rest of the Constitution still exists. That there is a lot more to the document than just the amendments Heck….most of you goofs don’t believe in anything past the first 10.
But the rest of the document does exist. It created GOVERNMENT. Meaning….that Congress can pass laws. And the Executive can enforce those laws. And the Judicary can examine those laws and see if they have been passed correctly or enforced correctly.
The amendments don’t change that.
t
“Your “political rights” and “redress” go only towards your government.” And if you can’t assemble to address it, those rights go away. One of the problems with “peaceable assembly” is that any violence by however small a percentage is immediately used to brand the entire assembly unpeaceable by the government. That’s a nuance that escapes you…you should look at various labor “riots” and to who started the riot. You might also look to the 1968 DNC police riot in Chicago.
“You are one of the narrow goofs that don’t get it that the rest of the Constitution still exists.” I fully get it, including that Treaties are incorporated into the supreme law of the land and that the Commerce Clause was poorly written.
The Constitution without the Amendments has to do with the structure and powers of government, not the rights of individuals or the powers of the States, or in that one circumstance where the Founders used “powers” and people. The Bill of Rights, not the first in English derived governance, was passed specifically to address that vacuum. Amendments after address structure and rights.
BTW, nowhere in the Constitution is the Judiciary given the power to review the Constitutionality of a law (nor does it give any number of judges for SCOTUS). It was expected that Congress could control itself (the Founders were just men). Judicial review was established under Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. It isn’t written in our Constitution. It isn’t enumerated. It didn’t exist until 14 years after (12 years if you use 1791 as the year of founding, I use 1789 except when testy).
I am glad that you know the rudimentary aspects of our government, that it is tripartite and the general functions of each. After that, downhill.
Replying to myself to keep the thread in order.
“That doesn’t allow you to in anyway affect me in my daily life. Your rights aren’t any more important than mine.” Oh, that is fraught with issues that you fail to examine. If rights are a balancing act, then your rights have to be part of that balance and will be affected. The balance is just that. Even when municipalites give out permits for that right to peaceable assembly, which has an intrinsic irony, you just had your rights affected.
You’ve never listed, described, or explained those rights you keep alluding to as yours that are so intolerably abridged when others use the same rights you have. How about starting now, make it concrete.
Ray:
Wow. Let me see if I can address some of that convoluted thinking of yours.
“And if you can’t assemble to address it, Thise rights go away”
Wow. No.
Let’s just see how that has worked recently
Ferguson. Lots of protesters. Few arrests.
Think back to the protesters in Wisconsin. Lots of protesters…..almost no arrests.
New York. Lots of protesters….very few arrests.
How about OWS. Relatively few long term protesters….comparatively few arrests.
Have you detected the pattern yet? No? Well did you hear the sound of your argument falling down around you? Should have….it hit with a loud thud.
Redress. Wow. You spreading that they meant throught the courts right? No…o bet you didn’t
As for what rights am I speakjng
Welllllllll…..if you would look at the U.S. Constuturion….the first 10 Amendments discuss some rights. Some of those Amendments discuss specific enumerated rights. BUT 9&10 don’t. They set aside “unemunerated” rights…reserved for the states and citizens.
Now….if you expand your thinking (in your case….you can just fake understanding) to a contemporaneous writing….the Declararion of Inpedence…..it mentions the idea that we have the rights to life livery and the pursuit of happiness. Same writers….Id say it fair to look at that those rights are included.
How about the “right to travel”. Nowhere is that mentioned….but it comes up around this site all the time. So if your protesting and holding a “die in” in the street and block my “right to travel….would you not be taking an action that violated my rights?
See that’s the part you’ve never gotten. It’s behaviors.
Again I use the loud party example. Does your rights to express yourself with loud music outweigh my right to peaceful repose inside my home? I’d say no. Your “action” shouldn’t be able to force me (as a citizen) to have to deal and out up with you.
Your rights aren’t more important than mine.
Your exercising your rigt to freedom of speech isn’t more important than my right to peaceful repose.
Your rights aren’t aby more important than mine.
“Your rights aren’t aby more important than mine.” Absolutely, because we both have the same rights. But you keep making the mistake of phrasing it as “my rights” and *your rights” as if there are two sets.
Now the next problem is that you forget that balancing act you are so fond of. If I have to use your false dichotomy of “my rights” and “your rights”, just so you’ll understand, yes sometimes “your rights” will be overriden by “my rights” and vice versa.
I have to go help with dinner, but I do find your “loud music” and “repose” interesting, not only because cities actually do address and try to balance, but also because if you were playing the loud music and your neighbor was reposing, we’d still have “your rights” to deal with.
Ta ta for now.
Wow. How sad. You are like an advertisement for the dangers of alcohol.
We don’t have the “same rights”. We are not the “same people”. I am an individual. I have my individual rights. I’m not a collective liberal such as yourself.
Wow. I hope diner helped slow that buzz down a little.
So you as an individual have different rights than I as an individual? That would be very chaotic wouldn’t it?
Ans example of collective rights is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as solely “militia”. I believe you fall on that side.
Liberal doesn’t mean what you think it does.
“Meaning….if you are part of the demonstration that has become unlawful
as it is no longer constitutionally protected as it isn’t a “peaceable
assembly”….ALL of the assembly is unlawful.” So if 1 to 5% start violence then all of it is unlawful. How convient. So, hypothetically, if some undercover cops start an altercation…
I’m beginning to understand the actions of the Chicago cops in 1968. It was called a police riot but it served the purpose.
ray:
You may be “beginning to believe”…..but you are still a long way from understanding anything.
Yet light-years ahead of you. Your description of our government where you failed to understand that the Constitution, without the Amendments, is just structure and powers, is sad.
That you thought the Constitution established Judicial Review is sadder.
“just structures and powers”.
Wow….you don’t even get what that means and you are trying to use it against me when it proves my point. Thanks….but I don’t need your help
Good try. And yes I know what “structures and powers” mean, it’s why I used the phrase, I am not sure that you do no matter your bluster, and yes I wrote it to use against your arguments.
Oh, for the sake of Christ, I just read your take on the Bill of Rights. Your take would have kept me in elementary school, we had to pass a written test on the Bill of Rights to go to middle school. Each of the first eight are about specific rights, from free speech, to not being forced to have spies in your house, to bail and torture. The 9th specifically means to not consider the first eight as an enumeration, like what was done in Article 1 to enumerate the only powers of Congress, but to understand that all rights cannot be enumerated so morons wouldn’t think the first eight were all. It was the one of two Amendments in the Bill of Rights that was expansive. The 10th the second, not that the Bill of Rights is actually in order of importance…
And I have never been so ignorant as to write “And the Judicary can examine those laws and see if they have been passed correctly or enforced correctly” when discussing the Constitution. It isn’t in there as you wrote it. Judicial Review is from Marbury v Madison. That’s so basic, prior there was no established power for the Judiciary to review laws over Constitutionality.
BTW, I know repetition, lots of repetition, is necessary for you to finally grasp a simple idea. So here’s one for: I fully understand that the Constitution is all the Articles in the body, all 27 of the Amendments, and the Treaties when we pay attention (Treaties cannot overrule the Constitution, so a treaty that conflicts with the First for example is null in those conflicting provisions). The 26th gave me the right to vote in 1972 (it was ratified in 1971), the 13th, 14th, and the 15th are Reconstruction Amendments, etc.
Ray:
I stopped after the first couple of sentences. Clearly you don’t know what it means otherwise you wouldn’t have used it in the context you did.
Phrase it however you’d like…..the Constitution was written to,form GOVERNMENT. The AMENDMENTS (maybe you need to look up the meaning of that word) came after the rest of that document. The preamble….lays out what the goal of the entire document is. And I really don’t think that you get any of that.
The Bill of Rights was part of the Constitution when it was ratified. They come “after” only by the term Amendment, which seems to confuse you. The later amendments come after the Government was constituted by ratification, which included the Bill of Rights. No government existed under the Constitution until ratification.
The Bill of Rights was necessary to get it ratified. It along with the body of the Constitution forms our Government. The Bill of Rights and the Preamble are in full accord.
You are right about the 1st amendment. But real reporters have college degrees and ethics.
You don’t need a college degree to be a reporter, all you need is the ability to speak and write. In case you haven’t noticed, the education system in this country places a higher emphasis on socialization (aka brainwashing) than it does on either writing or speaking. The result is we wind up with state propagandists and apologists for the status quo instead of journalism, and that can only result in fascist tyranny. Or haven’t you noticed that “higher education” is a huge melding of government and business interests?
To be reputable, you need a college degree. I don’t know of one periodical or mainstream media station that hires people without a degree in journalism or broadcasting. By the way, I have a masters in psychology. To working in the field i do you have to have a 4 year degree.
Actually you don’t. Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson and many others don’t have a college degrees.
You are correct. But I am talking about journalists, and reporters. Those who gather information from Rush Limbaugh ect…
Lars was a journalist and reporter for years. Look, I’m not knocking education. I work in Healthcare, hold two Bachelors degrees and have worked in the clinical and social psychology fields. This said, being a journalist has little to nothing to do with education. Stating otherwise is simply not true.
There is a big difference from a reporter/journalist who has a degree, ethics, and works for a real news media. I know you are not knocking education. I am saying The difference of a college educated journalist/reporter is more reputable than an activist with an I-phone camera
Who knows anymore. Everything is so partisan and jaded its hard to tell.
Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS all have or have had reporters with no degree in journalism or broadcasting
Post a link to that information
As soon as you post a link that substantiates your statement that to “be reputable” as a reporter requires a degree in broadcasting or journalism
http://journalism.about.com/od/schoolsinternships/a/Do-You-Need-A-Bachelors-Degree-To-Be-A-Journalist.htm
A link that states that a journalism degree isn’t necessary to become a journalist supports your position how?
Journalist and reporters are looked at as professionals and are treated accordingly. Again, their jobs depend upon the degree(s) they have.
Weird how only 41% of the industry agrees with you.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/08/do-journalists-need-a-journalism-degree-educators-practitioners-disagree/
I believe you need to look at that article again. Questions were asked to professionals and educators in journalism. They all say to have an education or a “degree” in journalism is very important.
Clearly you didn’t read the article, nor did you examine the graphs included in the article. 41% of industry professionals, you know, the ones that hire people to do the job, consider a degree in journalism very important in terms of criteria for hiring someone as a journalist.
Further, there is a distinct difference in education and having a degree, which the article discusses.
You, sir, are clearly an idiot, and can’t see how far off the mark your whole “real reporters have a degree in journalism and ethics” bullshit really is
I did read the article and it says people having a degree in journalism is very important. The graphs have stated that. Since you cannot backup your BS statements you go for name calling. The only idiot is you moron. Trust me, there are graphs to prove that.
The article clearly illustrated that the industry doesn’t look at a degeee in journalism as an important enough factor to consider it a necessity, but I guess that’s over your head. I do so love how you play off your own burden of evidence though….. And by the way where’s the scientific proof and link to the graphs proving that I’m the only idiot?
Exactly.
I’d prefer someone with a sound basis in the field that is being reported on than someone that has a BA in journalism, or, unfortunately, a degree in psychology.
A sound basis does not mean a degree. Dedicated amateur astronomers can seperate the chaff from the seed. A journalist without any knowledge of astronomy can’t.
No need to bash psych majors. I have several degrees. Business admin, clinical psych etc. I generally work in health care and it is a necessity in this sector.
This being said, education doesn’t make me any better than anyone else as some on here seem to be asserting.
I’m really not bashing psych majors. I’m bashing individuals that have psych majors that can’t seem to apply it.
Education isn’t awarded by a formal degree. Otherwise, all with the degree would be equally educated. I’m making a point about what it is to be educated.
I don’t see “applying” it as the issue. There are millions of Americans out of work and that is a whole separate issue.
This being said, I agree 100% with your assertion about individuals being equally educated. I graduated Summa Cum Laude with a double major and a full load. I also have a family and worked. Therefore, I mastered the subjects I studied and graduated with many people who had the same degrees I had with C averages.
Trust me, they were not all equally knowledgeable. Either way, education alone is not any indicator of skill, ability or professionalism. Some of the dumbest people I know have very prestigious degrees.
Applying an education to me has nothing to do with a job. It has everything to do with living a life. That it gets you a job is great.
” I mastered the subjects I studied and graduated with many people who had the same degrees I had with C averages.” Absolutely. And you only mastered the subjects that you studied, and only those specific to your degrees. And you know that by your comment.
I’m not attacking you, please understand that. Education is not an indicator of knowledge other than in a specific area. You very aptly pointed to a further problem: “Some of the dumbest people I know have very prestigious degrees.”
I’m agreeing with you, brother. I’m generally addressing the trolls on the board which point to education as some form of legitimacy.
Thanks for the feedback though. It’s nice to know they’re some sensible people out there…
I know you are, and you really summed up my position with this: ” I’m generally addressing the trolls on the board which point to education as some form of legitimacy.”
But being the nitpicker I am: they point to approved, and/or certified education as the only form of legitimacy. Educated is what you become, it isn’t conferred. Formal education helps, experience helps, but neither in themselves make you educated or, heaven forbid, an expert.
Authoritarians are clueless about the distinction.
Couldn’t have said it better. Well put my friend.
Thank you with all sincerity.
But never make the mistake the frog did. I will sting, but I wait until the river bank is reached. When we are both in that river it is irrational to sting.
Good health and long life to you.
Lol. I love that proverb. Right up there with the snake from Their Eyes Watching God.
You too, brother.
An allusion to which I have no illusions. So, by search, is that the novel by Zora Neale Hurston? And what is the proverb from the snake?
You are correct fine sir. And the snake is essentially the same story. It makes an alliance during a hurricane and bites once it’s over.
So it didn’t express it’s nature as self-destructingly as the scorpion. Some should take note.
Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh etc etc.
Another trained in psychology that doesn’t apply it. What the hell did you actually get from that degree? A job..
I can get a job anywhere with that degree.
So you can get a job at a newspaper or in broadcasting?
So, I was right, the only you got from that degree was a job…
No, I got a career.
Which is just a job. Thinking careers last forever is so 1990s.
This again. No, you don’t need a degree to be a journalist! Most of the “Mainstream “Journalists” are lawyers by trade. Nothing to do with journalism.
I have multiple degrees. So what. It doesn’t make my opinion any more valid than anyone else’s.
“You are right about the 1st amendment. But real reporters have college degrees and ethics.” Which degrees? If you want to maintain only Journalism or Broadcasting, it’s why we get news reports like “Nitrogen is a toxic gas” or something on how 40% sulfuric immediately chars skin.
Yes, a higher education is important. I don’t want a BA in Journalism reporting on the latest in particle physics. Like they would understand it. Like the report they would give would report anything worthwhile.
The ethics part I agree with, but it isn’t confined to a degree in those two fields, hell, it isn’t confined to having a college degree. But it is a great out for you, given that all the jounalists that have given false reports (like Walter Duranty) don’t meet your criteria so your argument always hold in your mind.
Just like activist articles “have given false reports”.
Well thank you for acknowledging my point.
Yur comentts git stoopidur bye thuh day!
I said that about you the other day.
Definition of a reporter: someone who reports using facts and evidence to bring attention to a cause or event.
So how does any of what you said apply to activists? This site is notorious for posting out rages lies and half truths.
Definition of a lying sack of shit: Slappy. AKA JC, Jason Free, etc, etc, etc.
I believe you believe that Rain man.
Do you really believe it takes a college degree to sit in a chair, ask the questions you were told to ask, write down the answers you were given, and then submit those answers to your editor? Perhaps your definition of ethics is to not ask anyone questions that might make them uncomfortable or that they don’t have prepared answers for?
The American people are waking up, and they no longer trust your “ethical, college educated” self-serving journalists to report the news. I think it was Ben Franklin that said it was better to read nothing at all than to read only newspapers, and it is better to be uninformed than to be misinformed.
Activists are not reporters or journalists. Call your local television studio and find out what the qualification are to work there as a “reporter” Call your local newspaper and find out what qualifications you need to work as a ‘journalist.
Hardly. As examples of vaunted journalists: Walter Cronkite studied political science, and failed to get his degree; and Edward R. Murrow took Speech.
The best I can find is that a college for Journalism started around the sinking of the Lusitania, and didn’t graduate enough students to meet the needs of a very small city. Journalism has been mostly by apprenticeship.
Formalizing Journalism has obvious issues. Someone with a college degree in Journalism is only trained to report on journalism. Would you rather have someone only trained in formal journalism reporting on science or medicine? Think carefully.
http://journalism.about.com/od/schoolsinternships/a/Do-You-Need-A-Bachelors-Degree-To-Be-A-Journalist.htm
Thank you for illustrating that you missed the entire point. You gave a link to corporate need.
So do you think someone with a BA in Journalism went on to earn a master’s in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine? If not, how do they report on something they have no basis to understand? I’m getting to a point…
How’s was your trip to freguson, did ” the shit hit the fan” like you we’re expecting, or did you use up all your vacation days in a motel wacking off and eating pizza
Definition of a reporter, Someone who has a college degree in journalism, and has ethics. Idiot
definition of a shithead, someone who acts like JC
Oh wow!!! Please stop so I can write my feelings about what you said in my diary. Are you truly this stupid or do you work at it daily.
re·port·er
rəˈpôrdər/
noun
noun: reporter; plural noun: reporters
a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts.
You said, “a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts”. Call your local news station. Ask if their reporters have college degrees. I bet they do.
So what if they all have college degrees? If anything, the degree only certifies that they have been socialized by the state and view the events that they will be reporting on through a polarized lens rather than a clear one.
You said, “If anything, the degree only certifies that they have been socialized by the state and view the events that they will be reporting on through a polarized lens rather than a clear one”. Prove that statement. Post a link that backs up your statements scientifically. College degrees are a sign of academic accomplishment. Those people put in 4 years to work in the fields they do. They know by compromising their ethics, will destroy their careers. Activists don’t have ethics. You can tell just by reading all the copblock “articles”
You keep saying that word. I dont think you know what it means.
What word is that?
I’m glad to see you don’t understand what a dictionary is, not surprising though. One doesn’t need a degree in journalism to be a reporter, one does not need to even be paid to be a reporter. A reporter by definition is one that reports a situation that is going on and documents that situation either through a written report, audio of the event, or video and audio of the event. IQ much?
I disagree with you. A reporter is some one who has a degree in journalism and ethics. Activist have perverted a real professional field to make themselves feel important. The funny thing is they are usually pushed aside and not allowed in real press conferences.
a degree in journalism and ethics has nothing to do with being reporter. but go ahead and keep opening your mouth it seems like you can’t keep the stupid inside you.
Yes, a degree and ethics has everything to do with being a reporter or a journalist. It’s amazing how stupid you really are.
your mental retardation is grandiose by any measure. But go ahead open your mouth and let stupid fall out again.
I believe you believe that Rain man
Unfortunately for your argument, it’s no longer the case. It’s why Dan Rather had to step down.
Moreover, your definition is just a footnote in the history of reporting (not the ethics part, but then ethics is what all of us are supposed to practice even in everyday life). Damn, what did we do before there was a College of Journalism? I can tell you, we fought an unjustified war for Independence given there was no accredited journalist to report what was actually being done by the Crown.
So one journalist steps down and that taints the whole field? A degree in journalism will open doors for that field and others. If you look at antique news papers ect… you see how wild some of those stories get. Just like on copblock.
LoL! Where do you come up with this stuff??? LoL!!!! Holy fuck! LoL!!!!
I was about to ask you the same thing.
see, there’s your problem. you watch CNN, CNBC, MSN, ect.
I watched them when the verdict was read and when they were in Ferguson and during the protests and riots.
SHUT UP IT’E NOT ALL ABOUT YOU BITCH.
Little steve drying to show everyone what a coward and loser he is.
Ohhhh are you cramping up, that time of the month for you?????
Thats because msm dont report facts… they just spew out some shit the pigs hand them….
Really? I see a lot of activist run websites that definitely spew the garbage. Look at 99% of the copblock articles. There is always more to the story then what was written.
Do you have a link to prove your assertion? Any scientific studies? Would you even apply the same standard?
Pick a story on copblock. How about the stories about Michael Brown. Copblock had articles condemning the officer for shooting Michael Brow and then making statements they have the whole story. When the verdict was read from the grand jury, a lot of info was missing in the copblock articles not to mention accusations that weren’t even close to true.
Here are a couple of copblock stories to prove my assertion.
Jeffery Weinhaus. He was tried and convicted of weapons charges. He was guilty by a jury. copblcok says differently. http://www.copblock.org/87445/legaland-documents-re-the-unjust-caging-of-jeffrey-weinhaus/
How about the articles by Zane Crane. If you remember he shot the videos in which his mobile massage vehicle wasn’t registered and he made all these claims he didn’t have to. Of Course he failed to post the video of him racing through Phoenix while the police are chasing him and he ended up being pepper sprayed and thrown in jail. The list goes on…
If you hadn’t made overbroad statements about reporting, who can’t and who can, your examples focusing on Copblock may have worked. But you didn’t.
Instead you turned it into the typical authoritarian argument that ignores reality for authority. I used Rather because those unethical non-reporters showed the document that Maples and Rather were calling a smoking gun was in a font that didn’t exist when the gun supposedly smoked (typewriter). That is why reporting can’t be left to a class that has your authoritarian stamp of approval.
Edit: And thanks to Maples and Rather, we now have the phrase “fake but true” as another derision of “authorities”. We have the word “fisking” from another fake but true authority. The Rolling Stone is dealing with another case now..
More ranting and idiot remarks from a copblock circus chimp. I believe what I want to believe you believe what you want to believe.
Well that was an argument worthy of an ape, just not the Homo Sapiens Sapiens variety.
Personally, I prefer bonobos. Chimps are fucking violent, bonobos just fuck. Do you always reach for chimp?
As for the nihilism, no I don’t believe what I want to believe, I believe what I learn. It’s why I don’t believe today what I believed 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago. I’m not speaking to ideology. Your mileage differs.
Sure there fake ass po
How are you making out with that 6ft hole
Still making threats I see.
Nope just seeing how the project is progressing .
Yep, you are still making threats.
Yawn….
Legal definition of press,; a person who records or reports information with the purpose of distributing it to the public.
This JC guy is one of the biggest trolls I think I’ve ever seen, he’s gotta be some fat cop with no life
He may be a cop, but I think he leans more to the mainstream propaganda industry, perhaps public relations for police department?
Seems to have an agenda. That’s for sure. Plays Devils Advocate.
” I guess looting is a form of protest “
Looting is a form of crime, as is the criminally negligent homicide of Akai Gurley by NYPD rookie Peter Liang, who we all know will never be indicted.
Seems it was an AD, Akai was a floor below Liang and the round ricocheted in him.
It could meet the burden for negligent, but you are under the impression that the 23 in the grand jury think like you.
Remember the Detroit SWAT raid, one trial was a mistrial as the jury hung on the word “reckless” and in his second trail, another deadlocked jury.
Always remember, the burden is “beyond any reasonable doubt.”
CS:
They don’t know that. They think it’s mob rule.
They lead with emotion and sensationalism, not facts.
And if the roles were reversed, if a non-cop had the accidental discharge, do you think it would be no billed?
And that’s the question isn’t it. Each and every incident is unique to itself. In 2010, 600+ people were accidentally killed by firearms, in 2011 it was 591, how many are criminally charged?
The short answer is some are and some aren’t.
http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/trevor-hargrove-accidentally-shot-by-friend_n_3383709.html
http://www.wric.com/story/26462581/no-charges-to-be-filed-as-deadly-shooting-is-ruled-accidental
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/arlington-national-cemetery-shooting_n_3353374.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28976683
http://www.wcti12.com/news/no-charges-filed-in-accidental-shooting/27265170
http://www.wric.com/story/26462581/no-charges-to-be-filed-as-deadly-shooting-is-ruled-accidental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
Remember, do no harm to fellow freedom Lovers of any color. Remember that the 1% is trying to make this a race and color issue; which it is not! It is the 99% of all citizens against the 1%! Color has nothing to do with it, as we the people only want our criminal corrupt government illegal laws and bankers/corporations from ruling all of us. Do no harm or damage to your neighbors property, or persons! It needs to go to the treasonous corrupt offices in uniform protecting the DC criminals power over its people! If this clueless agressers going up against the will of the people are traitors to their oath, their country, and that that of all past veterans who lost their lives for our country.
Since these criminals in uniform will do harm to you and your children, remember, they also have spouses and children that will left alone in their home. Imagine if the peaceful citizens of your community visits them at their home and asks if they would be willing to stand in the front lines with them; after peacefully explaining their fathers treasonous actions are acting as criminals. Do you think the fathers will harm their very own loved ones and finally put down their weapons, once they see their loved ones in front of them? They also have parents, brothers, sisters, etc, so knowing who your local police officers and families live is vital to get them on the side of Freedom while they are in force commiting TREASON.
Do these forces really think they will be going home to their peaceful home after they do harm to their very neighbors/community? Imagine if they take the life of a fellow neighbor. Do they really thing that their community will allow them and their family to live in their home peacefully, after they harmed children and citizens? Don’t they understand that their family will be on the receiving end of whatever forces they given to their fellow community members? Do they really think they and their families will live a more “Peaceful” life after they taken up arms against its very neighbors they were sworn to protect? How can their community be safer after they are the REAL criminal gang doing harm to its community?
The more criminal uniform officers your community can keep from the martial law scene and their Police Dept. will weaken the DC powers over your community. The Feds gave military grade weapons to each small city because these are the VERY FORCES that DC needs to keep their power over the people. If these police officers put their weapons down, all communities will be free from the corrupt DC powers, and power given back to its very people.
Too, if they are already in force against its citizens, yes, they have chest protection but their legs are exposed. So imagine if something would be angled right above ground level? How many legs can be downed by one item; taking them off their feet and making them useless to stop the protest AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE. No legs = not moveable/walkable = majorly weakening them as a force.
Is their anything that these Criminal Treasonous Gangs in police uniforms will not do for money? How will history look at these WW2 SS officers that will surpress its very own citizens, and overthrow our Constitution? They are the very traitors to the US Consitution, and shown they love power more then PROTECTING THEIR LOVED ONES THEY LEFT AT HOME. By them leaving their families alone, the peaceful citizens can go to their very homes and peacefully ask/get them to the front lines, so these treasonous criminal thugs can put down their weapons they chosen to overthrown your nations Freedom. Anything less, they are Enemies against the Freedom State.
Remember, do no harm to anyone, as all life is worth saving, and I do not condone or implying to take any action by any means to hurt a single soul.