[aww_dang]

People can pick and choose where they stand on this incident or perhaps even choose not to participate in the partisan dialectic.

I'd just like to point out that the opposing view on that incident would characterize it as exactly the kind of sensationalized coverage which the above poster could be referring to. One narrative suggests that it was staged. Worth looking at it from both sides. As we discuss this, let's not steam roll past those concerns.

My personal view is that there's more than a little BS flying from all angles. CNN wouldn't be what I consider hard hitting or informative journalism. I don't know what really happened and I can't jump to any conclusions. Thanks.

[adjkant]

See other threads, but this is not an isolated incident. Trying to argue that it was staged seems incredibly disingenuous and an unreasonable standard of proof given the widespread occurrences of this and police brutality in the past 48 hours.

https://twitter.com/GravelInstitute/status/12669299271164682...

[aww_dang]

Just to be explicit, I don't take sides, I'm not interested in advancing any argument and I am skeptical of most claims. This goes doubly so for the extreme partisan takes, which are generally unreasonable. I'm sorry this disclaimer is seemingly necessary.

My personal views are secondary to the point of my comment, which was: Perhaps we should consider both sides?

[nl]

The interesting thing about these claims is that in many there are multiple film views of the same incident, and in the CNN case there was an apology issued.

What exactly are you skeptical about?

[aww_dang]

If you must pry, I'll say that CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested. I'll also say that arresting a journalist is out of line and that the police could have let it ride. However no one is perfect, certainly not myself. Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.

For me I'm comfortable just leaving it as an unknown instead of attempting to take sides or claiming an authoritative understanding of the event. Moral grandstanding for either claim would be a further leap too far for me personally. However you are welcome to argue your opinion with someone else. I just can't do that in good faith. Thanks for understanding.

[nl]

I hadn't actually seen the CNN incident until I saw it via the Australian journalist who were arrested.

It made quite an impact here - and while you seem to think it's journalist trying to get ahead in their careers in this case that doesn't make sense. Being arrested makes it more difficult for foreign journalists to re-enter the US which has a huge negative impact on their job.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/world/north-ame...

[aww_dang]

>you seem to think... I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.

Similarly, arresting reporters isn't a plus for a policeman's career.

I do take a position on outrage culture and rampant moralizing which is not serving us well. The blame game isn't the way out of this mess. One-sided, partisan takes are just more fuel on the fire.

[adjkant]

Who says people have not considered both sides, reasoned, and then come to a conclusion? Considering both sides does not mean forbidding conclusions to be made. It's clear that I find your level of skepticism to be too far for the context, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

(edits for bad spellcheck)

But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power. You can claim neutrality ideologically, but that's useless in practicality. I'm sorry that you are disconnected enough from the world to not take sides or draw conclusions (even with caveats) unless you have a level of information that is practically impossible to gain.

[aww_dang]

>But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power

This is highly presumptuous mischaracterization of my statement and intentions. We're discussing something online, unless you have a crystal ball I'd say you've made a bit of a leap here.

[adjkant]

I'm only going off what you said:

> I don't take sides

Not taking sides is de facto siding with the more powerful side in a situation for practical/effect purposes, this is pretty well established across many disciplines. I 100% am not saying you are ideologically siding with them, only that it is the effect of your lack of siding at all.

[aww_dang]

Thanks for clarifying.

Thinking in realpolitik may be a viable way to inform oneself of a strategy to achieve ends, but I don't accept it personally as a method of observation or diving a moral truth of an event. I.E. the means justify the ends etc. This is where I diverge on your assumptions. Usually this method is characterized as resulting in immoral outcomes.

Furthermore, it hasn't been established that CNN, with an army of lawyers on retainer and a a massive budget isn't in the position of power. For CNN the arrest played well if not better than the normal coverage. Would you dispute that the arrest buttressed CNN's narrative? These are the ends which were achieved by this event. It is evidenced by the fact that we are having this discussion.

Who has more power in media, CNN or whichever local police department?

The relevant expression would be, "The pen is mightier than the sword". However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power.

Let us also observe that the reporter was released. If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?

No, I am afraid that I am left with more doubts after examining it at depth.