The Raw Story released an article in which they claim "Less than two days after police cracked down on Occupy Albany in a violent raid, apparently anti-capitalist vandals went after a holiday display in Washington Park." This alone rang out to me to be an obvious hit piece. For them to even imply they had anything to do with it would be journalistic malfeasance. Do they mean to tell people they aren't able to get to the bottom of who actually did it before they put it on the internet? Why didn't any of the editors, who should be reading over each and every article, sit on Megan Carpentier's piece until more information was available?
In the slightly more than three months since Occupy Wall Street has been around there have been no shows of violence from any of the groups in spite of the fact they were justified in doing so more than a few times. However, they not only didn't take violent action against the city, police, media, or other figures who obviously had it out for them, they also stopped people from fighting back against the cops. What in the world would make anyone, much less Raw Story, think to imply this act was done by Occupy Albany?
Bad reporting on your end Raw Story. It makes one wonder what else is newsworthy or true.
Update: Here's the video.
Another update: Raw Story states authorities in Albany say there's no link between the protesters and the vandalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment