317
Australian reporter covering Los Angeles immigration protests ~~hit by~~ intentionally shot with rubber bullet on live TV
Dude clearly aimed and shot at with intention
I'm going to be honest, I would not be the least bit surprised if media outlets were intentionally toning down the coverage and framing it this way as an attempt to avoid getting into Trump's crosshairs.
And yeah, watch the video. He intentionally raised his gun and shot her in an attempt to scare her away from continuing to cover it.
media outlets were intentionally toning down the coverage
American media, or media in general, toning down police brutality? Whaaaaaaaaaaat? Noooooooooooo. They would never do such a thing.
You can clearly see him deliberately lining up the shot, aiming at the reporter from fairly close range.
Pro-tip - If you can't tell who the reporters are, maybe try NOT shooting at people holding microphones and talking into cameras? 🤔
Unless the goal is press intimidation... but then when is it not?
Unless the goal is press intimidation…
DING DING DING.
She OBVIOUSLY Deserved it! She was being VIOLENT!
-Conservatives who Do Their Own Research!
She spoke in weird tongues, and the american HERO was intimidated by these unfamiliar nosises that were NOT AMERICAN. A true hero.
I dont understand how an article interpreting the post for you is better than a video that shows plain as day what happened? In the past, I've tried to post information before its become widely known, and doesn't have any news articles written on it yet, and its been removed for "not being news". This is completely antithetical to the point of this sub in my opinion.
Simple, videos are unvetted, from unknown sources, and can contain jankey spammish monetization.
Rather than go item by item and saying "this video is OK, this one isn't" we have an established rule of "no videos".
Yeah, I dont buy that argument. Not my sub tho, so 🤷🏻
Well, think of it like this, all the mods are volunteers here. We have actual paying jobs outside Lemmy and, you know, "lives" and stuff.
We don't have the time to watch every video, read every Twitter post, or every Blogsite to go "Yeah, that's OK" or "No, that one's bullshit."
So, yeah, we set up catch all rules. No videos, no social media, no blog sites.
In an attempt to answer your question, there tends to be a lot of misinformation following events like this. Often footage doesn't even need to be AI or altered, it can just be footage from other events that looks similar that's posted in good faith by people trying to spread the news. I assure you some of the clips flying around at the moment are from the George Floyd protests, or even a sports hooligan riot, or from events that didn't even occur in this country.
At least in theory (and theory is doing a lot of heavy lifting with my attempt at answering your question), a news publication has an obligation to in some way determine the veracity of what they're publishing.
I mean, I watched live footage of the protests on Saturday night. This isn't something that even happened weeks ago, and they're taking down stuff that shows a direct source. It just gives more leeway to the media to determine what is and isn't okay to show the public. I get the point their trying to make. But it seems really one sided to just make a blanket ban on videos.
One sided would be selectively allowing some videos and removing others. :) The fair answer would be to allow all or remove all, but then if we allowed all it would be top to bottom 1 hour YouTube videos on how Trump is secretly an alien robot from Neptune.
You're perfectly within your right to remove videos that are clearly misinformation. Regardless, appreciate the engagement. I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just voicing my own frustration with the whole thing. It seems like we are sliding further and further into fascism and there's no way out, and this is just one of the many straws in a rather insignificant pile compared to the shitstorm that is modern politics in the U.S.
It's cool, I know you're not, but there are a LOT of trash videos out there and we just can't review every one of them.
Hell, YOUTUBE can't review every one of them. :)
Let's see what the latest statistic is?
https://seo.ai/blog/how-many-videos-are-on-youtube
"360 hours of new videos added every minute or 518,400 hours daily. And know that the average video is about 12 minutes long, approximately 2.6 million videos are uploaded each day."
😳
Leave it to an Aussie to shrug it off, too "I'm good. I'm good."
"At least the fucking bullet wasn't venemous!"
Surprised she didn't go after him! LOL!
Serious!
The camera guy was like see ya! .....runs.....then "are you okay". Honestly I would do the same though.
Fucking downgraded censored video.
For good quality original one go there :
https://lemmy.world/post/31090916
(thanks to @distantsounds )
"Original"... except at least the video in this article doesn't have vertical video syndrome where the sides are cropped out. The quality is definitely lacking though.
How is it censored? The one you linked to also has the audio bleeped out and, since it's been converted to vertical format, it is clearly not the original.
This one is a better quality horizontal format, but even it has the audio censored. I've yet to see an actual uncensored one.
I can't confirm this yet, so no link to post, but I'm being told ICE in Vancouver, WA just took a couple who were dropping off their kid at school.
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
317 points (99.7% liked)
politics
24163 readers
2881 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS