Hey, Los Angeles Times, they're rioters, not protestors

Here's the lead paragraph of a story in the Los Angeles Times:

The nightly standoffs in downtown Portland between protesters and federal agents continued early Sunday, with several dozen agents in camouflage deploying tear gas and other munitions as they waded into the streets beyond the federal courthouse to push back demonstrators who authorities said had breached a fence. [Emphasis added.]

Do these stormers look like protestors? Are they standing innocently, or attacking?


The Los Angeles Times isn't alone in this propaganda-qua-reporting. It's showing up all the time. But the media aren't willing to recognize that even the rioters themselves have eschewed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's strategy of non-violent protest. They say non-violence is ineffective--another glaring sign that they don't know history. The non-violent civil rights movement accomplished one of the nation's greatest reforms and cultural change.

What will the rioters' violence achieve? The re-election of Donald Trump.


Leave a comment
  • Trump poured gasoline on smoldering embers when he sent "federal agents" without any identification on their uniforms who arbitrarily arrested people and held them until the abducted persons demanded their Constitutional rights and were released without charges.

    Please give all the pertinent facts if you are objective and want to have journalistic integrity.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Aquinas wired:

    What does your comment have to do with Dennis' post? It's either a riot or a protest. That is the issue.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    It's a riot, Jerry. Has there been any question that the federal building is being protected by law enforcement officers?

  • fb_avatar

    All part of Newspeak. The left is using 1984 as its guidebook.

  • It is interesting that you and Ken, the supposed wordsmiths, criticize the LA Times for using the word "protesters" without yourself defining the word. Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "someone who shows that they disagree with something by standing somewhere, shouting, carrying signs, etc." So, what did the LA Times get wrong? Is it possible that you are the ones who are inserting propaganda into the quote by insisting the protesters be called "rioters"?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Definition of riot:
    1a : a violent public disorder
    specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
    b : public violence, tumult, or disorder
    2 : a random or disorderly profusion
    the woods were a riot of color
    3 : one that is wildly amusing
    the new comedy is a riot

    A little self-deception going there, jnorto?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Of course, your definition of "riot" could be applied equally to the camouflaged federal agents. But, to return to the issue, what did the LA Times get wrong when they wrote "protesters" other than not using your loaded term?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Do you really not understand the difference between a violent mob and law enforcement agencies legally protecting property--our property, incidentally--from damage by your "peaceful" protestors?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    As a former Chicagoan you know that we have had some experience with police riots. For additional examples, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot

  • "Do these stormers look like protestors? Are they standing innocently, or attacking?"

    Here's an education in some common fallacies:

    Cherry picking fallacy – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

    We are to judge an entire movement based on one photo you picked out without considering other photos or video evidence we have seen?

    Hasty generalization fallacy – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample or the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.

    We are not given the context of what happened seconds, minutes, hours or days before this photo was taken and if we zoom out, what additional details we would see? Who were the aggressors in the situation? Who initiated the "attacking"? Is this a "storm" by the protesters, or a reaction to the law enforcement's actions?

    False dichotomy fallacy - a type of informal fallacy, more specifically one of the correlative-based fallacies, in which a statement falsely claims an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option.

    Do protesters (or rioters) exist only in an either/or state of "standing innocently" or "attacking"? What about chanting, marching, reacting to getting shot by tear gas, or avoiding bodily harm?

    Your arguments are weak and based on your opinion and common fallacies. You can do better.

  • In reply to Lincoln311:

    Again, are not the people who are storming the federal building, throwing fireworks and otherwise acting violently rioters? What is the "context" that makes them something else? Protestors who are not violent can truly be called protestors. When they turn violent they become rioters. I am astonished that anyone would claim they are not, or that we don't know. We've come to the point that we aren't allowed to see with our own eyes. We need the woke to telll what's happening in their "reality." This is truly scary.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: