[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.