First of all, it was not a press release. Second, “giving space” does not always (or even often) mean “set aside areas”. It just means “allow” or “not interfere with”.
You’ll be glad to know, then, that many of the peaceful protestors say that the media is exaggerating the violence and downplaying outside instigation.
In this case it seems to mean “enable.” Allowing peaceful protest makes it much easier for folks who want to riot to get their riot on.
Consider the converse: if the police did not allow peaceful protests, would they have an easier time preventing the riots?
Only half of what she said, and out of context.
Your eyes – and Fox News – are lying to you.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re all reading the same English. That’s clearly what is meant by the quote, context or no context. It doesn’t read or sound to me like she was saying they purposefully “gave space” in the sense of willful ceding of space to allow violence to continue. It means that in the process of protecting peaceful protestors from cars and the other things that were going on, that caused there to be space created which rioters took advantage of. I suppose it could have been phrased more elegantly, but there’s no doubt in my mind that is what is meant and, in my opinion, doesn’t take any linguistic gymnastics to understand that. It’s plain English to me. Now, whether the cops should have been deployed more strategically or aggressively, that’s another question. But that quote does not mean a space was purposefully created to let some violent ne’er-do-wells burn off some steam.
Anyone who doesn’t believe there was a risk assessment done in terms of acceptable losses and damage and the resultant media spin control of said losses and damage is as partisan, blind and willfully ignorant as any retarded Fox News Beckhead.
I think that conversation happened and in the middle of the frenzy she blew it. It happens. The denials and accusations make it look worse. Admit what she said and THEN re-spin it. I believe she would’ve then had a more tenable positioun of plausible deniability.
Well, I think the message here is that the riots were handled well, given that all we can find to criticize is a single ambiguous sentence at a press conference.
That and the fact that the looters and arsonist pretty much ran loose with little enforcement against them for about 3 hours.
So now CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC used CGI to exaggerate the number of people in the videos going in and out of stores with broken windows carting out liquor, pringles, toilet paper, cell phones, etc. etc.
The same news agencies, used CGI to show 10 different building fires and the over 200 automobile fires when it was actually a few.
Got it!
I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a discussion of how to develop a response that would contain and diffuse the violence rather than focusing and escalating the violence.
But that’s definitely not what she was talking about here.
The idea that there is anything you can “spin” a media downplay of this is laughable. This kind of footage is the stuff that gives news agencies wet dreams, and no liberal bias on Earth is strong enough to keep those images looping for as long as people are willing to watch.
“It’s a balancing act. While giving the children the opportunity to play, we also gave them the opportunity to poke each other’s eyes out with sticks.”
“It’s a balancing act. While giving the astronaut a greater tether on his spacewalk made him able to explore further, we also gave him an increased risk of his tether breaking.”
“It’s a balancing act. While making our coffee hotter increased customer satisfaction, we also increased the risk of someone stupid suing us over a spill.”
Seriously, are some people incapable of understanding this sentence structure? There was an implied “unfortunately” in there.
When she said
It meant the same thing as
Yes, it was clumsy phrasing. But a moment of thought should make it clear that no mayor would ever encourage destruction of their own city - and if they did, they sure as hell wouldn’t talk about it in a speech.
And yeah, this is a stupid point to debate when the bigger picture is far more important. But I already typed all that out, so I guess I’m joining in.
Laughable? We have people in this very thread speaking of how well handled the riots were.
If what happened yesterday is what some people consider a success, I’d hate to see what they consider failure.
Oh, so now we trust the MSM?
Anyway, I’m sure you know that CGI isn’t the only way to accomplish such purposes. Fox News doesn’t need computers to do what they do.
(post shortened)
Headlines followed by the original video of Rawlings-Blake statement. How is it taken out of context when the entire context was provided? You could claim Rawlings-Blake misspoke. That would be plausible. It was the Mayor’s office that released the clarified version of Rawlings-Blake statement, not Rawlings-Blake. Rawlings-Blake claimed she didn’t say what the video’s viewers heard her say. :smack:
Yes, people are arguing about “wording”. Shocking, ain’t it. (Does that qualify as a “hill”?) Rawlings-Blake made a statement. The media asked her questions about her statement. (How dare they question her. :rolleyes: ) Rawlings-Blake said she didn’t say what the video clearly shows her saying. The Mayor’s office issued a clarification of Rawlings-Blake’s statement.
Hey, Baltimore. Eat a Snickers.
You turn into Ferguson when you’re hungry. 
Let’s compare it to, say, the riots in DC in 1968.
15 building fires versus 1,200 fires.
1 killed versus 12 killed
21 injured versus 1.097 injured
600 arrests versus 6,100 arrests
46 years later, not one aspect of daily life in DC is not touched by the riots. They are the prime factor in where we live, work and play. Their impact on our economy is still something that affects us every day. We have not emerged from their shadow.
Looking less distantly, there are the LA riots. 53 dead, 2000 injured, 11,000 arrested. 1 billion(!) in property damage.
What happened in Baltimore should not have happened. But on the “how bad is this riot” scale, this could have easily been a LOT worse. I don’t want to minimize the damage, but this was far from the worst case scenario.
So this laughable downplaying…
It is true that it was nowhere near the feared Worst Case Scenario. And it is also true that it should not have even got to where it did get.
Still, should we deny people a sigh of relief that it was not as bad as it could have been?
And should we not still hold the authorities to account for letting it get as far as it did?
What I’d really appreciate at this point would be for a sample of BaltiDopers to give us a report from the frontlines, so to speak, as to how is it affecting them, what’s happenning in their street, how’s the Mayor’s foot-in-mouth moment playing locally, etc.
My sister lives and works in Baltimore. She and her family are obviously upset by the rioting and some of the destruction was near her office, but it hasn’t been a major disruption to their lives. She’s more upset because, to quote her last message to me, “Our City was finally making progress. This is quite a setback.”
Which is similar to how I view the London riots of 2011 - one of the riot zones was only a few miles from us; while we weren’t directly affected it was sad to see the damage wrought by those who take advantage of public disorder to destroy and steal.