This is why reporting needs to be very precise
The DC police have confirmed only that they are investigating the defacement of private property in relation to the protest at Tucker Carlson's house.
The conclusion that the activists shouted threats is @brianstelter's alone.https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1063609290420817931 …
-
-
First, the issue is that you made it sound like something which isn't even the subject of the police investigation (as far as we know) - that the protestors were chanting threats - had been commented on by police. That was my main criticism.
-
Second, it just isn't clear at all that the protestors shouted threats. The statement you just tweeted in all caps isn't clearly a threat. You think it is. Other's don't. It's a matter of opinion. It almost certainly DOES NOT legally constitute a threat.
-
Something isn't true just because you say it is. Maybe if you were wrong the first time on this, you should step back and reconsider your approach this time. Just saying. Cheers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Brian, I admire you. Follow you. Listen to you. I’m not sure you’re being objective about this story. Please step back and think about how your position might be affecting your coverage. Also, please give Rebecca the respect, courtesy she is due for her original report.
-
Thank you. Appreciated.
-
Thank you for the clear-eyed reporting.
-
Thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That’s kind of implied since they are outside his house at night.
-
Journalism does't work like that.
-
You're not supposed to report inferences. You're supposed to report facts.
-
Is it a fact that people standing outside of the place where you sleep stating they know where you sleep inherently a threat or is that not in itself an inference? Did any reporters ask a protestor if it was intended as a threat because its also just a statement of fact.
-
Because if that is iherently a threat then so is their very presence outside of his home, which is not accurate.
-
That statement is not inherently a threat. Already had this discussion tho, so peace out.
-
No point arguing when we agree lol
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Actually if you're a reporter, "We know where you sleep at night" is "We know where sleep at night". Saying that it is "clearly" a threat without even giving the quote is providing opinion completely devoid of the actual fact. Try sticking to facts.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A threat of physical violence? They had every opportunity to be physically violent and weren’t. Seems stupid to ensure culpability for a later crime by chanting threats. If by threat you mean they will continue their protests, then yes, they were threatening. This is not unlawful
-
If you were to say that you were going to continue protesting at his house if he didn't stop being so racist, that would still be a "threat" in some abstract sense but not illegal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Listen to Dr. Kavanagh, Brian. She's got it right. If the activists were shouting threats (which they legally weren't) that would be reflected in the police report and investigation, which isn't the case. Pick a different hill to stand on than Mt. Carlson.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean. They were standing near the road outside his house. So, rather than a sinister threat, it just seems like an obvious statement of fact to me.
#ReleaseThe911Call lolThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.