'I can't breathe!' Australia must look in the mirror to see our own deaths in custody What we are seeing in the United States is an attempt to make the public blind to heavy-handed police tactics. That observation is rarely comfortable for those in authority, but it is a necessary part of the system.Īs a recovering journalist and press freedom advocate, I am of course concerned about assaults of my colleagues. In so many cases in the protests, journalists have clearly identified themselves verbally, with accreditation, with vests labelled “press”, carrying professional-standard cameras, and by their actions, observing rather than participating in the protests. It acts as a watchdog on behalf of voters, monitoring the behaviour of institutions like the police and government who are supposed to be acting in the interests of the public.
Trump freedom of spress free#
There is no doubt some journalists have behaved unethically or been loose with the facts, and the news business more broadly has not always covered itself in glory.īut as imperfect as it may be, it remains a vital part of the way a free and open democracy works. In the US, the president himself has frequently derided journalists as “the enemy of the people”, who peddle “fake news”, and on Sunday he issued a tweet describing them as “truly bad people with a sick agenda”. The CPJ’s Courtney Radsh said the organisation’s experience of tracking violence towards journalists in some of the world’s most hostile regimes shows that the police step up their attacks when they believe they can get away with it. In the United States, policing is generally a state and city affair, so collusion seems unlikely. There does not appear to be a coordinated strategy. The police actions against journalists might seem futile in our social media age when everyone with a mobile phone has the power to act as a reporter, but that doesn’t stop individual cops from lashing out at those they see as actively monitoring them. But the numbers suggest something more troubling.īellingcat’s investigator Nick Waters, wroteĪlthough in some incidents it is possible the journalists were hit or affected accidentally, in the majority of the cases we have recorded the journalists are clearly identifiable as press, and it is clear that they are being deliberately targeted. Inevitably, anyone reporting in violent places risks being caught in crossfire. The startling number of attacks on journalists does not appear to be an accident.
Trump freedom of spress tv#
Scott Morrison intervenes over Washington police assault of Australian TV crew ( In a speech moments before, Trump had – without irony – declared, “I am your president of law and order”, and “an ally of all peaceful protesters”.) They were beaten while filming outside the White House, as riot police used tear gas and batons to clear the peaceful protesters so President Donald Trump could walk across the street and hold a Bible in front of St John’s Church. The 101st involved an Australian news crew from Channel Seven. In the first four days of protests, its chief investigator counted more than 100 incidents. One organisation, Bellingcat, has been tracking assaults on journalists since the riots broke out over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week. It is deeply troubling that an organisation usually advocating for reporters in violent autocratic regimes decides it now has to support those in its own backyard. But the CPJ is aiming its latest note at US-based reporters more used to covering city hall than documenting running battles between police and demonstrators. It is the kind of advice I used to be given before going on assignment to places like Baghdad, Kabul or Mogadishu. If there is a threat of live ammunition being used, then body armour should be considered. Taking into account the increased levels of violence and tactics used by both police and protesters, ballistic glasses, helmets, and stab vests should be worn. Here is a line from the latest safety advisory for reporters issued by the US-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ):
0 kommentar(er)
