Perhaps you've already seen this now-notorious clip of Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) confronted by a student-reporter (and a cameraman) and responding, well, let's just say, inappropriately:
Glenn Greenwald thinks that it's a clear-cut case of assault -- or at least that Etheridge should be arrested and charged with assault (I assume that Glenn does not presume guilt, which would be for a jury to decide). Glenn is backed up by John Amato and John Cole, among others.
And the evidence is fairly compelling. For while the whole thing may have been a right-wing set-up, Etheridge does act violently, if not all that aggressively, knocking the camera out of the cameraman's hands and grabbing the reporter by the wrist and then briefly by the back of the neck (and then putting his arm around him). He is clearly irritated, visibly upset by the encounter, and he repeatedly asks the reporter who he is.
The thing is, context matters here, and I don't think it's right to jump to conclusions based on a short clip. No, I don't mean to defend Etheridge, and I certainly don't want to suggest that there is a double standard here. I would like to think that my views would be same if a Republican had acted in a similar manner. Just because the reporter and cameramen may have been part of some right-wing set-up, that shouldn't excuse Etheridge.
But part of the problem here has to do with the very idea of such confrontational "journalism." Etheridge is a public figure, but being accosted on the sidewalk is hardly the sort of "reporting" he or any other public figure should be subjected to. He was right to ask who they were, and he was right to be persistent, and it must be noted that they didn't answer. A legitimate reporter would have stated his name and organization. Etheridge must have suspected foul play, of sorts, and that surely explains, at least to a great extent, the severity of his reaction (again, without necessarily excusing it).
In other words: context matters here. It was likely a set-up -- and note how the reporter's face is blurred. And I just don't see much in the way of assault, or at least not enough (and, admittedly, I say this without being an expert on criminal law) to warrant an assault charge. Indeed, I tend to agree with Jon Chait:
It's probably true that the law is going to get enforced more harshly and literally if the victim is a member of Congress. I think the proper remedy is to treat Congressmen like everybody else, not to start treating everybody like a Congressman. If you were walking down a random street and started firing questions at some random person, and they grab your wrist for a few seconds and demand to know who you are, they're probably not going to be arrested and charged with assault and battery. Normally such an encounter would stay clear of the legal system, even if a cop was standing right there. I could see how the notion of prosecuting this kind of scenario would appeal to a lawyer like Greenwald, but Greenwald's beau ideal of society is probably a lot more legalistic than mine.
The whole thing seems wildly overblown to me, and it's telling that the "victim" isn't pushing this. (Do we even know who he is?) Etheridge has rightly apologized. He should pay for any damages to the camera but should face charges only if local prosecutors determine that it was assault given the context in which it occurred (and to determine that requires more than a short clip).
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not excusing what Etheridge did. He should not have responded even to such an unpleasant confrontation with physical violence of any kind. As a public figure, as a politician, he should have known better. He could have asked who they were and, not getting anywhere, simply walked away. After all, why give the opposition any ammunition? But I just can't get too worked up about this, not given the context, and I don't think it's fair to rush to judgement. The clip doesn't tell us everything we need to know about what happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment