[chrisrhoden]

First, the press credentials should probably grant some benefit of the doubt if the justification for arrests is something along the lines of, "I can't think of any reason you might be here except to cause mischief."

I think what's shocking to people is that, traditionally, police have understood that they're somewhat more likely to be held accountable for abuses of power toward journalists. It seems likely that is primarily for the same reason that e.g. a tech company with a bad policy is more incentivized to fix it if it happens to stub the toe of anyone with an audience.

That police in many cases apparently knew that there would be no consequences if the press was _strongly_ encouraged to document frequent abuses is not a great sign.

The other parallel I think folks are drawing is that abuses of journalists in particular is a common feature of dictatorships. My sense is that this is not a particularly good parallel to draw in this case, but it's easy to see how one might connect the dots based on a passing review of the facts.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

> ... traditionally, police have understood that they're somewhat more likely to be held accountable for abuses of power toward journalists. It seems likely that is primarily for the same reason that e.g. a tech company with a bad policy is more incentivized to fix it if it happens to stub the toe of anyone with an audience.

That's exactly what I see as problematic with it. When the only way to get google to fix something is by having an audience, that's really bad. When the only way to get society to fix something is by having an audience, that's really bad too.

There's an analogy to product reviewers. If the chef gives something different to the reviewer than they give to everyone else, the review isn't useful or is even misleading. When something happens to reviewers or journalists, it makes front page headlines. Until then, it just happens more quietly, which is dangerous. I'm just tired of the media not making a stink about important things until it happens to them, then suddenly this things is Import and and it Must Change Now.

> The other parallel I think folks are drawing is that abuses of journalists in particular is a common feature of dictatorships.

Totally agreed. I don't think we should withdraw protections from journalists. We need everyone to get the protection to see what's happening with their own eyes, talk about it, and post about it.

[chrisrhoden]

I'm not arguing that it's good that police are more likely to handle situations with reporters well. I am saying that the fact that they won't even be on their best behavior in their interactions with the press anymore is indicative of the fact that they no longer think it's necessary to do so.

That strikes me as noteworthy.

[xxpor]

>When the only way to get society to fix something is by having an audience, that's really bad too.

That's just politics, i.e. how the world has always worked? Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

Right, exactly. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so we need to make sure that wheel squeaks are representative of society's ills. When something bad happens to non-journalists, journalists need to squeak just as loud as if it were happening to themselves. Providing the same treatment to the media as everyone else is one way to encourage it.

[xxpor]

I agree with your point, I just think it's inherent people will care more about other people they're regularly in contact with. Reporters' friends are other reporters by and large, just like my friends are largely other tech folks.