Journalist arrested, charged for Jan. 6 coverage

He may well have a case for beating this. I’m comfortable with that getting sorted out by an actual court case though and not just his say-so. (Apparently he will have sufficient resources for his defense, since I imagine this is becoming a cause celebre for the right.)

 

That story is from September. Did the meeting occur? If so, did anything come of it?

 

I couldn't find an update. May have got lost in the shuffle of House Speakers.

Seems like the Senate Press Gallery is in charge of all the Congressional press credentials. Membership - U.S. Senate Daily Press

 

Sure is interesting how quickly someone like that can take up the sanctity of journalism.

 

As this thing has unfolded over the past year, I think one of the reasons Blaze Media brought him on board was to a) Give him some extra credibility by having an organization behind him, rather than being on his own as a freelancer; and b) To give him some extra legal backing with their in-house legal team.

 

Doubt he was charged for coverage.

 

I'm guessing their motivations did not include accurate or responsible journalism.
He thinks Jan. 6 was an "event" that included as many leftists as Trumpists.

 

Does Blaze have an in-house legal team? If they do they should’ve advised Beck against hiring Whitlock.

 

The feds don’t normally bring charges unless they have a near-airtight case. Even if it’s just for misdemeanors.

 

I think falls more on marketing than legal.

 

I also doubt he’s a legitimate journalist. But in some circles, suggesting January 6 has been overblown is the fifth gospel.

 

I don't think I've ever heard him suggest it was not a big deal, or that it wasn't a dark day. He's not whitewashing or downplaying it. He's trying to logically explain it. There is a difference.

His biggest thing, especially once he got swept up in it, is that it appears there were a lot of weird little things from that day that don't add up. If you read his account of the day, he pointed some of it out right away. Like Trump supposedly inciting the crowd, but the audio system at the rally was absolute garbage and it was hard to hear anything, so how many in the crowd even heard what he said? Or some of the interactions between protestors who appeared to be well-prepared and organized. Or, as he's gotten further down the rabbit hole with the video, cameras that were focused on a spot for weeks suddenly pivoting to a different angle right when something important is happening in that spot.
What he's tried to do is go back, review video — thousands of hours of it over the past year, from hundreds of cameras — and connect the dots on those anomalies. He's said some conspiracy theories were easy to dismiss once you see something on video from a couple of different cameras. Other theories gain more credence. Some narratives on both sides get blown apart.
No one else has been either able or willing or motivated enough to take on the gigantic task of sorting through that mountain of video evidence. He's obviously got all three of those things going for him.