Facts matter. As do their honest expression. But given the “reporting” in recent months about “mostly peaceful protests,” you may wonder whether reporters agree.
Some do. Here’s the Charleston Post and Courier: “Brooms and dustpans replaced rocks and spray paint Sunday as an army of volunteers descended on Charleston to clean up the demoralizing mess left by an angry mob that smashed, burned and pillaged much of the city’s central business district.”
“Hundreds of New York City Businesses Were Damaged, Looted in Recent Unrest,” according to a Wall Street Journal headline. An article in the Minneapolis StarTribune tells us: “Buildings damaged in Minneapolis, St. Paul after riots.” Riots. There’s a word.
Reporters have reported (i.e., done their jobs) on rioters destroying small businesses around the country, and even killing people.
But too many supposed news-hounds shy away from honest reporting. Recently, U.S. Attorney Bill Williams of Oregon chastised a TV reporter for refusing to name openly criminal behavior . . . in this case, that of Portland rioters trying to destroy a courthouse.
The newsperson sought to blandify the thuggery as “late-night demonstrations” or “late-night activity.” Williams stressed the difference between “lawful, constitutionally protected protest” and criminal conduct. “This is just mindless violence, and anyone who defends the violence is enabling this to continue.”
The reporter wasn’t swayed. “I’m not a police officer, I don’t get to distinguish
The assumption being that such determinations are up
But legal culpability is not at issue.
What is? Facts: a window was broken; a fire started; property vandalized; person assaulted.
If you feel disallowed from imparting evident facts to the public, a profession requiring you to do so all the time isn’t for you.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)