They even said- Three arrested were from Fredericton. Two were from Halifax and I was from Fredericton. But why did they call me a protester? The Telegraph Irving Journal can get away with this because I'm allowed to write back.
It's going to be very interesting on Tuesday!
Saturday, July 22, 2006
WHY DID THE IRVINGS CALL ME A PROTESTER????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Why?
Because you were standing side-by-side with them.
Because you most likely got a drive to/from Saint John with one of them.
Because you were promoting and supporting their cause on your blog in the week leading up to and since the protest.
Because you wear the protest t-shirt.
Because you hung out with the protestors while they were organizing the event and making signs.
Do you need any other reasons? You weren't an unbiased reporter covering the story. You were a protestor with a camera, plain and simple. Your whole life revolves around being a professional protestor just like that kid who was arrested in Fredericton at the previous protest.
He also stated quite clearly that he was going to cover the protest for his blog. He was standing side by side with reporters, not protestors. Wearing a T shirt means nothing, I can wear a San Fransisco Giants T shirt, that doesn't make me a player or even a fan.
The footage clearly shows Charles was no protesting. What the above are saying is that 'you are guilty by association', which is what the witchhunt for communists was all about-because you associated with a communist means you must be a communist.
That's not remotely true of course, and because you protest one cause certainly doesn't make you protest any other, that's just crazy. That's like saying that if you went to the pro-life rally last thursday then therefore you must support the pro-choice rally on friday. Again, that's just silly.
However, Irving probably didn't even have reporters there, they were all inside taking photographs of their fearless reader, so they would 'just assume' thats what you were doing.
That's called lazy and bad journalism or malicious editing.
This is all very interesting, but I suspect the most likely answer is that the paper just reported what the police told them.
It would be pointless to debate anything with you, since you are no different than Charles and your arrest/fine at the previous protest was equally justified.
Protestors of a feather stick together.
The bull is thick tonight. The Irving Ragg paper doesn't have to print the truth or worry if they are wrong; no accountability. Billionaires can pay any fine and they are above the law and if not the the premier will help to pass a bill or law to help them because they are special above the rest of us!
The above is another way of saying "I can't argue with that". So true.
Post a Comment