During Charlottesville, our reporters on the ground there got caught in the middle of a brawl in which a group of neo nazis pummeled a young black man in a parking garage.
Later, the FBI asked us directly and bluntly for all the footage we had of the incident ...
Later, the FBI asked us directly and bluntly for all the footage we had of the incident ...
There were several other reporters there, but we ended up being closest, from two angles. The incident, a brutal felony assault, happened in plain view of the public.
It never crossed my mind not to give law enforcement our footage.
It never crossed my mind not to give law enforcement our footage.
Later, four of the people identified in videos of the beating were sentenced to prison.
google.com/url?q=https://…
google.com/url?q=https://…
Now the Seattle Times is refusing to give up footage of felonies in plain view of the public.
I wonder how wider media would have reacted if we did that with Charlottesville? Almost certainly would have interpreted it as a defiant defense of neo nazis.
I wonder how wider media would have reacted if we did that with Charlottesville? Almost certainly would have interpreted it as a defiant defense of neo nazis.
Not sure how else to interpret this move from the Seattle Times (with defense from a NYT reporter) as anything other than a defense of violent anarchists.
It certainly isn't about safety.
It certainly isn't about safety.
Put bluntly, the goals of these anarchists are in line with the political proclivities of the Seattle Times newspaper, that's the message this sends, plain and simple.
