Tags
cancel culture, Chicago, Christopher Columbus, Confederate monuments, Connecticut, election 2020, freedom of the press, history wars, ImPolitic, Nelson Lee, peaceful protests, press freedom, protests, public safety, Seattle, Seattle Police Department, Seattle Times, shield laws, Ulysses S. Grant, violence, Washington Post
The next time you hear or read that the vast majority of protests during these turbulent times in America are peaceful (which will surely be within the next five minutes if you’re a news follower), keep in mind this pair of developments. They give me the willies and should so unnerve you, even if you (like me) believe that the vast majority of the protests have indeed been peaceful.
The first matters because it makes clear as can be that some of the protest groups contain individuals who make the cohort of brazen looters that’s emerged in so many violence-wracked cities look nearly harmless. What else can be reasonably concluded from this Washington Post account (yes, the same Washington Post whose journalism I slammed yesterday) of a court case in Seattle dealing with whether news organizations in the city could be ordered to turn over to the Seattle Police Department photos and video their staffers had taken of protesters who had “smashed windows, set police cars on fire, and looted businesses.” The cops’ intent – use this material to find the perpetrators and arrest them.
I was hugely relieved to read that the judge presiding over the case did rule that most of the material (all unpublished or posted) must be provided. But I was aghast at the reason given for the news organizations’ resistance. The Seattle Times, for its part, did cite freedom of the press concerns – involving Washington State’s shield laws, which entitle news organizations to protect source materials. These laws, which in various forms are practically universal throughout the United States, are indeed essential for enabling journalists to secure information that governments would rather keep secret for self-serving reasons.
The Times also made the reasonable (though in this case, not necessarily dispositive) claim that such cooperating with the police would put its credibility at risk. As contended by Executive Editor Michele Matassa Flores:
“The media exist in large part to hold governments, including law enforcement agencies, accountable to the public. We don’t work in concert with government, and it’s important to our credibility and effectiveness to retain our independence from those we cover.”
But these weren’t the only reasons cited by the paper. In an affidavit, Times Assistant Managing Editor Danny Gawlowski attested “The perception that a journalist might be collaborating with police or other public officials poses a very real, physical danger to journalists, particularly when they are covering protests or civil unrest.”
Moreover, Gawlowski stated, this danger wasn’t hypothetical. It had already happened. According to the Post‘s summary of his affidavit;
“The request could significantly harm journalists, the Times argued, at a time when reporters already face violence and distrust from protesters. One Times photographer was hit in the head with a rock thrown by a protester and punched in the face by another demonstrator.”
In other words, the Seattle Times, anyway, wanted to refuse to help law enforcement protect public safety because at least in part it was afraid that some protesters might attack them even more violently than they already had.
That sure sounds like intimidation to me, and successful intimidation at that. And even though the judge thankfully ordered substantial (though not full) cooperation, who’s to say that the Times won’t pull its protests coverage punches anyway? Even more important, what if violence-prone protesters elsewhere in the country read about this case, try to strong-arm local or national news media, too, and succeed? And what if not every judge holds the same priorities as Seattle’s Nelson Lee? Talk about a danger to democratic norms – as well as public safety.
The second development concerns decisions by governments in at least two parts of the country to take down controversial statues – a major front in the nation’s history wars. Don’t get me wrong: Elected authorities removing these monuments is sure better than unelected mobs toppling or defacing them – as long as these actions follow legitimate procedures and aren’t arbitrary. And as I’ve written repeatedly, in the case of Confederate monuments, it’s usually not only completely justified, but long overdue.
But in these cases, it’s the rationale for these actions that’s deeply disturbing. In both Connecticut and in Chicago, statues of Christopher Columbus and former President and Civil War Union supreme Union commander Ulysses S. Grant, respectively, were removed (as Windy City Mayor Lori Lightfoot explained her reasoning) “in response to demonstrations that became unsafe for both protesters and police, as well as efforts by individuals to independently pull the Grant Park statue down in an extremely dangerous manner.”
Translation: “I was afraid of the mob. And I decided to let them win.” No better definition could be found of the kind of appeasement that only spurs further violence. And no more important challenge will confront the President and candidates for Congress who will be elected or reelected in November.
RealityChek 
Ok, AT, interesting stuff. But, I kept waiting for the substance or something like it, that demonstrates that the vast majority of protesters in places like Seattle and Portland are not peaceful and that, in fact, most are actively involved in these unruly mob actions. But, instead, what I get is a brief but interesting description of the Seattle Times case in which the paper opposed release of photos to law enforcement, and a briefer description of incidents involving the tearing down of statues.
Here’s a brief description of my view. Most protesters in Portland and Seattle are nonviolent and they continue to protest because of what they beleve in. As for the minority of idiots who loot and cause damage, some will be arrested for crimes as they should, and some will get away sith their crap. Civil unrest is often messy.
What I don’t get out of your latest post is some kind of evidence that most protesters are in fact violent, anarchists, or some other form of bad actors who have no real interest in protesting what many see as persistent injustice and unfairness. By the way, I am slso very concerned about the shows of federal force in places like Portland, Albuq, Chicago, etc, that seem likely to aggravate circumstances not quell them.
We have different perspectives, once again, but I really was hoping to see more tangible proof, once and for all, that the majority of protesters are malevolent miscreants (or maybe even paid for by George Soros as some of my friends in Reno told me today), but alas, that was not to be. Peace amigo!
Incidentally, AT, I do recognize that your piece tries to focus concerns about unruly mobs, and you do state that most protests have been peaceful. So maybe more of my friends, who believe these liberal conspiracy theories including rioters being paid by George Soros, need to read your blog so they can eschew their beliefs that the majority of protesters are violent actors.
And, here’s a link to how one local Portland media source describes local events. https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/local/protests/federal-officers-in-portland-chad-wolf-dhs/283-414c3ad4-d2fd-49df-a037-d7b00635193e
Thanks and, as you note, I didn’t claim that most of the protests aren’t peaceful – and in fact I’ve never claimed that most of the protests aren’t peaceful. And I don’t recall ever using the words “George Soros” on RealityChek or in any other writings or media appearances. And I fully agree that anyone believing that the protests are really riots, and in George Soros conspiracies, would profit from reading this blog – and I hope you’ll recommend it. The same of course goes for those claiming that Trump’s Portland, Chicago and related decisions are unconstitutional Nazi-like efforts to seize all American political power.
I’m just hoping that the presence of federal forces does not lead to more violence. The wing nuts who think George Soros is behind paying rioters and anarchists are just that though some cross into anti-Semitic territory with their rhetoric and stupidity. And, I don’t think Trump’s federal force orders are Nazi-like at all, I just think he is wrong to do that and my fear is those actions inflame tensions. I hope I am wrong.