The Heat of the Moment

I love experimenting with new media. Twitter is no exception. However, as we journalists forge our own paths through the uncharted jungle that is the information age, we are likely to run into all sorts of unexpected pitfalls. Twitter's format makes it particularly subject to issues of misunderstanding due to the short length of the posts and lack of context.

I thought Twitter would be a good way for me to update my readers as to what was happening when I was reporting from the edges of a protest in St. Paul, Minnesota this weekend. It seems I was wrong. Unfortunately, some of my updates have given at least one reader an extremely distorted view of what I was up to at the time.

Allow me to clear up the confusion. I was not in St. Paul to protest. I was there to cover the protests and the police's reaction to them. To put it as bluntly as possible, I do not hold most of those who were protesting there in even remotely high esteem. The protests for the most part were childish and pointless. However, that does not justify the way the police responded.

From what I saw, the protesters could have easily been contained and waited out. Instead, the police repeatedly acted to instigate conflict. The protesters are certainly to blame for not conducting themselves as serious participants in political discourse ought to, but they did nothing to deserve the severity of the response they got.

Throughout the entire evening I did my best to remain out on the edge of the protests such that I would not appear to endorse them or even be overly associated with them. Rather than chanting any silly slogans, I simply stood back with my fellow reporters and quietly took notes about what was happening. Of course I also updated frequently on Twitter.

As things escalated, I increasingly expressed my exasperation with the police's behavior towards the protesters. Law enforcement officers ought to be more mature than the half-cocked young loudmouths they were keeping away from the convention. In this case they were not. Of course, if I were a straight news reporter, I would only comment on all of these things in objective terms. But I am a columnist and an editorial writer. It is my job to say what I think. Thus, I did my job.

Finally, as the police began firing flash bombs and tear gas into the crowd, I lashed out in my last two Twitter updates. Even though I was a nicely dressed and perfectly well-behaved journalist attempting to stay out of the way of the protest while still being close enough to see what was going on, I was still very much in the line of fire. Of course the crowd rushed out in all directions when the police moved in. As this happened, the police continued to fire flash bombs and tear gas.

After a tear gas canister nearly struck me, I referred to the police as "fascists" in a Twitter update. That was a mistake. I would have used the much more accurate term "authoritarian" if I'd had the time and presence of mind to do so. But, as I said, things were getting a bit out of hand at the time. So I used a word I now regret--not because I think the police were acting appropriately, but because the word is simply not accurate.

It was great that my friends could follow what I was seeing and thinking with Twitter, but it was clearly a mistake to suggest that readers who don't know me personally join in as well. There simply wasn't enough context for them to understand what I was actually saying and thinking. That is why I have, for now, protected my Twitter updates. I'm reevaluating the service's use as a reporting tool.

Again, I am proud of the professional manner in which I conducted myself on Thursday. I was doing my job and I believe I was doing it well. And as I said earlier, I am not particularly sympathetic to the protesters, their ideas, or their methods. However, I believe strongly that it is in large part the First Amendment that makes America the great nation that it is. When I observe police officers acting in a way I deem to be against the spirit of the constitution, I get upset. Of course police officers must protect people and property from those who would endanger them, but they should always do so in an appropriate and restrained way.

I went to St. Paul in order to see for myself whether what I'd been reading online about events there was accurate. Having been there Thursday night, I believe it is. My beliefs in the importance of new media and in the failure of much of mainstream journalism have been strengthened. My disdain for immature protesters as well as my skepticism of and alarm at the militarization of policing in America were also bolstered.

I'll be writing more about my experiences in St. Paul on this blog and in the paper next week. But for now I just wanted to set the record straight. I believe I have done so, but if anyone has question please feel free to ask and I will answer them as best I can.