That is not an argument at all. You can call it rioting if the journalists actually riot, or even incite. You’d have to be specific and show that these particular journalists were guilty of it, otherwise you’re just punishing random people for things they haven’t done. Also, you cannot punish someone for doing something legal.

Otherwise, the fact that their business model depends on things happening is immaterial. It’s like calling doctors mass murderers because they benefit from people getting sick.

These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts.

These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action.

Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives.

> These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts.

How would it matter, in this instance, even if it were the case? A judge has explicitly ordered the police to leave journalists alone. So, the police is enforcing its own version of the law, in disagreement with the judiciary?

So your excuse is that it’s ok, it’s just the police going rogue?

> These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action.

Punishing people for things they might have done hypothetically because of their profession is a strange conception of justice. Either they are guilty of doing something illegal (which inciting riots is and should be), in which case you try them and punish them for that, or they aren’t. This is irrelevant to whether they should be intimidated for covering protests, which they most certainly have a right to do.

> Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives.

And harass them, round them up, and intimidate them, regardless of what they have done or not? Somehow I doubt it.

I don’t know if you’re genuinely confused or just willfully leaping to assumptions. I’m going to assume you just genuinely misunderstand what I’m saying.

My original point was to argue the idea that journalist aren’t some innocent class of truth seekers getting a bad wrap, but that there is an observable strong and growing anger/distrust at journalistic institutions and so we should consider those perspectives and treat them seriously.

I’m not saying to round up the journalists, I’m not saying the police are justified, I’m not even saying hating journalistic institutions is justified. My direct and explicit point was to mention the counter argument against the idea that journalists are innocent and getting unjustified blame/anger directed at them.

I implore you to reread this comment chain with an open mind instead of what you currently seem to be doing, which is falsely trying to predict which ideological game I’m playing.

The antidote to relativism is to look at cases that we can objectively judge in isolation. For this topic it's quite easy - there have been many murderers who have escaped justice due to being employed as police officers. For example, Breonna Taylor's murder is a clear cut example - she was gunned down in her own home during a deadly home invasion, yet the public prosecutor refuses to do their job because the assailants are police officers. This case should make every American's blood boil, and most especially those that believe in the 2nd amendment. If someone is able to do mental gymnastics to end up thinking the actual problem there is the media blowing things out of proportion, they are truly lost - and most likely suffering from media psychosis in our postmodern environment.

Besides all the obvious replies about how silly that argument is, most journalists are pretty removed from the business/financial side of their organization.

Aside: > I know people who do and taking this perspective seriously

No. It is not a serious argument. Take people seriously, belittle bad arguments in respectful ways to the individual.

Sure, and so are developers, but surely the business side gets passed down and percolates through management. Not to mention I made no assumptions about HOW the business side percolates, but noted that there is observational evidence of journalists acting in ways one could interpret as fomenting. Stuff like: running headlines about a shooters race then being wrong later, running stories from an “anonymous source” with devastating consequences or getting the info seriously wrong like the Steele Dossier, the Covington kids, the George-Trump “find the votes” call. And so on. I don’t purport to know why or how the financial interest and the observed actions are physically connected, just that they almost look like a motive and a lack of alibi

So you're saying that if someone has an incentive to do that evil thing, we can act as if they're guilty of already doing it?

So basically we assume everyone is evil and guilty until proven innocent?

That's insane and not worth taking remotely seriously.