Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline
While I agree that journalists should have protections, and think Amy Goodman should not be prosecuted, I have some issues with how <i>this</i> article is presented.<p><i>﻿ The scene was full of movement. Overhead, a helicopter hovered, circled, while back on the ground, protesters began to report burning eyes, and dogs—dogs lurching at protesters, dogs straining against their leashes, dogs with mouths open, mouths biting.</i><p>Is that what the protesters were reporting, that dogs were straining, dogs had their mouths open, that dogs were biting, or is this a bit or artistic license?  If it&#x27;s the former, it&#x27;s just sloppy writing, as it&#x27;s hard to parse.  If it&#x27;s the latter, it appears to be a blatant attempt to influence through emotion.  This case is sound based on it&#x27;s importance and the law, and there&#x27;s no need to fictionalize an account in an informative piece, so I hope that&#x27;s not what this was.<p><i>Thus far, the North Dakota authorities remain committed to their own embarrassment</i><p>It&#x27;s not embarrassment if they think they should do it.  They are committed to their <i>course</i>.  Wording such as this implies they know they are wrong but are doing it anyway, as there&#x27;s no reason to be embarrassed about doing what you <i>perceive</i> to be right.<p>I understand the author is a friend of Amy Goodman, and wants to help, but I prefer my journalism to at least attempt to preserve the facade of objectivity.  Without that, my natural inclination is to recoil (and thus the impetus for this comment is explained).  I doubt I&#x27;m the only one, and what&#x27;s more, people naturally inclined to take the other side now have something to point at as an indication that this whole piece is not objective and should be discounted.<p>Edit: I wouldn&#x27;t mind an actual reply from someone that disagreed enough to down vote.  At least then I would have an idea of why what I said (or at least how it was interpreted) was in any way controversial.