The perils of being a journalist in an authoritarian state

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Did you read the thread?
They are journalists, with press credentials.

They were held in custody for 13 hours having to give rigorous details of their work, asked to reveal their sources and even the PIN for their phone.
The other guy had his house searched and his daughter’s iPad was seized. This is not acceptable behaviour in a democracy but we can thank Patel and others for this erosion of civil rights.
And it won’t stop here.

We need to get these fascists out of government once and for all.
It was a very sacarstic comment, given by the fact that most time i see journalist interview Juststopoil/instinction rebelljon etc. they act like spoke person not journalist.
That mentality isn't new, you then can go on and claim the law has disadvantaged them but that's backward thinking. The law was changed in the first place because journalist are nice when it suits them and critical when it suits them, well the job of a journalist should be to question things highlight the other side etc. etc. you don't have to like an pm/politician etc.
So in other words always be critical even when it doesn't suit you.
The journalist you consistently do that are a very small minority with as result that politicians and party's say ''we don't like said journalist we won't come to his interviews/program/microphone etc.'' leading in a situation where someone doing his job mediocre as best is qualified as good. And good journalist become estranged and isolated.
 

glasgowcyclist

Well-Known Member
It was a very sacarstic comment, given by the fact that most time i see journalist interview Juststopoil/instinction rebelljon etc. they act like spoke person not journalist.
That mentality isn't new, you then can go on and claim the law has disadvantaged them but that's backward thinking. The law was changed in the first place because journalist are nice when it suits them and critical when it suits them, well the job of a journalist should be to question things highlight the other side etc. etc. you don't have to like an pm/politician etc.
So in other words always be critical even when it doesn't suit you.
The journalist you consistently do that are a very small minority with as result that politicians and party's say ''we don't like said journalist we won't come to his interviews/program/microphone etc.'' leading in a situation where someone doing his job mediocre as best is qualified as good. And good journalist become estranged and isolated.

Can you clarify what you mean by the bold bit, because it looks like utter nonsense?
Are you suggesting that the police have been given powers to arrest bona fide journalists if they don’t approve of their style of reporting? If so, you could probably get a job with the Home Office.

Of the three journalists wrongly arrested, all have been released without charge and in the case of the LBC reporter, Charlotte Lynch, police have already conceded that she should not have been arrested.
Officers have now been instructed to obtain clearance from a supervisor if the seek to arrest someone who identifies as a journalist.

Freedom of the press is very important in this country. As one of the journalists said, “It's a big deal and when they are not following correct procedure for the press, then how far are they going to go?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

C R

Active Member
Can you clarify what you mean by the bold bit, because it looks like utter nonsense?
Are you suggesting that the police have been given powers to arrest bona fide journalists if they don’t approve of their style of reporting? If so, you could probably get a job with the Home Office.

Of the three journalists wrongly arrested, all have been released without charge and in the case of the LBC reporter, Charlotte Lynch, police have already conceded that she should not have been arrested.
Officers have now been instructed to obtain clearance from a supervisor if the seek to arrest someone who identifies as a journalist.

Freedom of the press is very important in this country. As one of the journalists said, “It's a big deal and when they are not following correct procedure for the press, then how far are they going to go?”

I bet Braverman and pals are in awe of how seppah deal with the press and protesters in Iran.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Can you clarify what you mean by the bold bit, because it looks like utter nonsense?
Are you suggesting that the police have been given powers to arrest bona fide journalists if they don’t approve of their style of reporting? If so, you could probably get a job with the Home Office.
So first you ask me to clarify then you add to explain what you think i want to say.. guess it's a way.
What i mean is that things often happen for a reason, so not i don't say or imply it has to do with their style of reporting, i do say that things happen because the situation made it happen.
I mean that in a broader sense if over the course of lets say 20 years, journalist ''unlearn'' how it is to ask critical questions, you can't be surprised if someone at some point gets into office who makes less favorable decisions for press freedom.
The responsibility for that actions is with the one that made those calls, but it's the result of lazy journalism.

And then the issue with today is that it's too much appeasement journalism, asking some questions but the general tone is more like an spokesperson than critical journalist. We seen that on a lot of topics but especially climate activist. I mean i heard the claim that there would be millions of deaths due to the uk (re)starting fracking(which so far i known isn't a sure thing anymore as it was a decision made in Tuss cancelled budget) Millions of deaths, the journalist just went on the the next question, leaving open the obvious questions, how, over what period, any facts to base that claim on etc. etc.
So that is an example of what i mean and what in extent but not on its own leads to erosion of the protections journalist used to have. (mind you it's just an observation, not an endorsement, not something a see as a positive development etc. )


Of the three journalists wrongly arrested, all have been released without charge and in the case of the LBC reporter, Charlotte Lynch, police have already conceded that she should not have been arrested.
Officers have now been instructed to obtain clearance from a supervisor if the seek to arrest someone who identifies as a journalist.
Yeah the bark is much harder then the bite kind of thing. didn't even saw it mentioned in most of the big media(probably somewhere hidden before the death notices or something)

Freedom of the press is very important in this country. As one of the journalists said, “It's a big deal and when they are not following correct procedure for the press, then how far are they going to go?”
I known they are on paper, I'm just not so convinced they are in reality. and given the general quality of journalism these days they don't really deserve it either. The average newspaper looks more like an advertorial then serious media. Frankly the best articles often come from the less tradition sources often with poeple who are on paper not even journalist.
But yes i agree that the police always should follow the correct procedures.
 

All uphill

Active Member
So first you ask me to clarify then you add to explain what you think i want to say.. guess it's a way.
What i mean is that things often happen for a reason, so not i don't say or imply it has to do with their style of reporting, i do say that things happen because the situation made it happen.
I mean that in a broader sense if over the course of lets say 20 years, journalist ''unlearn'' how it is to ask critical questions, you can't be surprised if someone at some point gets into office who makes less favorable decisions for press freedom.
The responsibility for that actions is with the one that made those calls, but it's the result of lazy journalism.

And then the issue with today is that it's too much appeasement journalism, asking some questions but the general tone is more like an spokesperson than critical journalist. We seen that on a lot of topics but especially climate activist. I mean i heard the claim that there would be millions of deaths due to the uk (re)starting fracking(which so far i known isn't a sure thing anymore as it was a decision made in Tuss cancelled budget) Millions of deaths, the journalist just went on the the next question, leaving open the obvious questions, how, over what period, any facts to base that claim on etc. etc.
So that is an example of what i mean and what in extent but not on its own leads to erosion of the protections journalist used to have. (mind you it's just an observation, not an endorsement, not something a see as a positive development etc. )



Yeah the bark is much harder then the bite kind of thing. didn't even saw it mentioned in most of the big media(probably somewhere hidden before the death notices or something)


I known they are on paper, I'm just not so convinced they are in reality. and given the general quality of journalism these days they don't really deserve it either. The average newspaper looks more like an advertorial then serious media. Frankly the best articles often come from the less tradition sources often with poeple who are on paper not even journalist.
But yes i agree that the police always should follow the correct procedures.

Higher standards of journalism would, of course, always be a good thing to aim for.

Variable and even sloppy standards of journalism do not, in my mind, justify restricting the freedom of reporters although they may be used to that end by politicians who see an opportunity to reduce their need to justify their decisions.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Higher standards of journalism would, of course, always be a good thing to aim for.

Variable and even sloppy standards of journalism do not, in my mind, justify restricting the freedom of reporters although they may be used to that end by politicians who see an opportunity to reduce their need to justify their decisions.
Agreed that they do not justify restricting the freedom of reporters. It is not my view that it should be an justification, it is my view that said justification is a side effect off the lack of critical reporting, because if you don't oppose some things than become the norm.
 

albion

Well-Known Member
Imagine if activists were pretending to be the police. They would have to arrest each other to prove who was the real police officer.

Do you not end up with something like Stalinism? Chinas war on Covid heads that way as does/did Irans war on women.
 

glasgowcyclist

Well-Known Member
Journalist Ben Cawthra will receive compensation from Hertfordshire police after they admit to his unlawful imprisonment at the Just Stop Oil protest. (Presumably the others will too.)

From The Guardian:

Ben Cawthra was one of four journalists arrested by Hertfordshire constabulary while covering protests by Just Stop Oil last month. Supporters of the climate campaign had climbed gantries to disrupt traffic on London’s orbital motorway.
A previous investigation, commissioned by the Hertfordshire force, concluded “police powers were not used appropriately” in making the arrests, but stopped short of admitting they were unlawful.
Now, after Cawthra began legal action, Hertfordshire constabulary have admitted their officers acted unlawfully by arresting him and violated his right to free speech, and the force has accepted liability for false imprisonment over his detention.
Amid the outcry, Hertfordshire constabulary asked an outside force to review the circumstances around the arrests. The investigation concluded frontline officers had been directed to arrest journalists by their seniors, without developing sufficient grounds to do so.
The arresting officers (and their commanding officers who gave the instruction) should be disciplined as well. It’s no defence to say you were instructed to behave unlawfully by a senior officer.
 
Top Bottom