BBC Cameraman assaulted by Trump supporter at Texas Trump rally

BBC - From Jon Sopel

I would really love to be able to say when I heard about the attack on our cameraman Ron Skeans that I was surprised. Or shocked even. I wasn't.

Once I found out that he was OK, and that the rest of the team were OK, I thought this was a pretty unsurprising event. What is shocking is that my reaction should be like that - because surely it can never be right that a person going about doing their job, in a country which cherishes the First Amendment and the rights of a free press, is pushed to the ground. But it is an incident that's been coming for a long time.

Before we get to that, let me say a word about Ron Skeans. Ron is the only one of our camera-people to have a "hard pass" that gives you direct access to the White House estate. I have a hard pass too. That means more or less whenever I am broadcasting live outside the White House, I am working with Ron.

He is the kindest, politest, most decent, patriotic man you could wish to meet. Frankly, there are a few cameramen that I've worked with over the years that are argumentative, provocative and generally belligerent. None of those adjectives could be applied to Ron.

He and I did a report together on Rolling Thunder, the day in Washington when thousands of bikers converge on the city to commemorate those missing in action in Vietnam or who'd been taken as POWs.

I rode my motorbike, he rode pillion on another to film the event. We were both slightly overwhelmed by the patriotism and emotion of the day. He is a proud son of Ohio - where like in most American families there were those of his relatives who supported Trump in 2016, and those who didn't.

The idea that someone would attack Ron is frankly preposterous. He's the wrong guy. But of course it wasn't Ron that was being attacked.

To the drunken lout in the red Make America Great Again hat at the Trump rally, who bravely attacked him from behind while he was looking through the 12lbs (5kg) of camera on his tripod and couldn't see him, that didn't matter.

Ron wasn't Ron. Ron was the media. And the media are fair game, aren't they?

I covered endless Trump rallies in the run-up to the election and since - and there is a pattern. The attacks on the media are hugely popular with his supporters. They are every bit as much a part of his "set" as Honky Tonk Woman and Satisfaction are part of a Rolling Stones concert. You just can't imagine it not happening.

If you've never been to a Trump rally let me describe what it's like.

At some rallies at the end of the election campaign there were police officers posted on the access points to each press riser (the platforms where our cameras are mounted towards the back of the venue); even if there were no police they were confined areas.

There was no security last night, and the attack on Ron was stopped by a Trump-supporting blogger. Law enforcement were slow to get involved.

At some point in the president's remarks he will point a finger to where we are filming and you know then the fun is about to begin. "Have you seen a group of more dishonest people? They are fake news; they are the enemies of the people."

And like at a Christmas pantomime the crowd would jeer and boo. Honestly, for the overwhelming majority it is good fun; a part of the ritual. Like being at a football match and saying disobliging things about the referee.

But for a few - and I should add, a growing few, it is more than that. The uncomfortable truth is that with each month that passes the attacks have become more vociferous, the violent atmosphere on these occasions more palpable.

All of my colleagues have stories of occasions when they've been jostled; some have been spat at. Last night Ron heard the words 'CNN sucks' and '[expletive] the media' before he was taken down.

President Trump interrupted his speech and checked that Ron was OK. But there was no condemnation. No statement that this was unacceptable. The Trump campaign issued a two-line statement on the incident, but equally did not condemn what happened. What conclusion should we draw from that? What message does it send to people who feel hostile towards the media?

What has surprised me in this whole incident (though not massively) has been the reaction on Twitter of some people.

There are those who have argued, well you're fake news, and Ron got what he deserved. So much for a free press. When I am accused of fake news, I always ask people to point me to something that I have said which is factually incorrect.

I know we get things wrong, and should always be humble enough to put our hands up when we do. But our job is to hold power to account: prime ministers, presidents, kings and queens, despots and autocrats. But just because you don't like the coverage doesn't mean it's fake.

Another reaction has been to suggest we are somehow exaggerating what happened and parsing aspects of this or that. Surely it is just plain and simple wrong to attack someone in the course of doing nothing more provocative than filming the president speaking; an accredited journalist at a Trump event, filming his speech to disseminate to our audience. Why the need to equivocate? It is just wrong. Plain and simple.

And there are those who say it was a Democrat stooge - and can we prove that it was a Trump supporter. We went round this course after the pipe bomb attacks last autumn, when it was suggested the person who'd been sending devices to prominent Democrats was a stooge who was doing this to make the Republicans look bad.

A lot of people who should have known better bought into this - it turned out to be total nonsense. The man charged was a fanatical Trump supporter.

Words have consequences. An interesting meeting took place at the White House two weeks ago when the president invited in the publisher of the New York Times and two of his reporters. The reporters conducted a conventional news interview with President Trump on the issues of the day. But after they had completed that, AG Sulzberger tackled Mr Trump on his fiery anti-press rhetoric. It is worth reading the whole exchange.

But the publisher warns the president that his words are divisive and dangerous, and he expresses the opinion that unless it stops there will be an increase in violence against journalists around the world.

Well last night that violence unfolded in El Paso. Ron was unhurt. It wasn't life-threatening, but it was aggressive and violent. But what about the next time? Or the time after that?

None of us goes into journalism expecting a grateful public to be throwing rose petals in our path as we walk along, or carrying us aloft as conquering heroes.

But in a healthy democracy surely we ought to be able to report a president's speech without - literally - having to look over our shoulder.

My god! Look, find the press fake? FINE! But this shouldn't be justified in ANY case. And I'm not surprised Trump refused to condemn the attacker.

When the alleged leader of the free first-world all but gives you permission to be a bigoted asshole, it's no surprise that people indulge in that.

Speaking of my own experiences, I have never seen so much bigotry as I have in the past two years. Not enough money to pay for your cigs at the 7-11? It's the Arab cashier's fault, cuss her out. Think your paycheck is a little lighter than your entitled to? Blame the Mexicans. Annoyed by the student protest? It's those damn entitled gays. All this, and more, is of course allowed and supported by the "fake news".

They're coming out of the woodwork. I tell you what, it's been an eye-opener; shows you just how far we still have to go. I try to be an optimist, but when the "best" things about Trump shine light on the worst parts of your country and countrymen, it's hard to think positive thoughts.

@mrbojangles25: It's been heartbreaking to see what my tenants have been going through.

Republicans are violent animals.

This reminds me of when Trump egged on violence at his campaign as well as when the republican candidate body slammed a reporter.

Feel bad for the guy, having to provide coverage of a nonsensical speech given by a moron, alongide red-capped thugs.

When you think your job sucks, remember what the press has had to put up with during this administration.

is Antifa not a thing anymore

is Antifa not a thing anymore or does it only count if wearing a certain hat?

Been overshadowed by Trump I guess.

Still I think less people on the left accept Antifa/more speak out against them, than right wingers speak out against Trump supporters attacking journalists.

I don't think Trump has ever stated that while calling mainstream media fake news, violence should never be used against the journalists. Instead he praised the Republican who body slammed a reporter.

So tell me. What do you think is worst. A president saying another Republican is "his type of guy" for body slamming a reporter, or Antifa?

I think that is enough whataboutism in this thread for now.

Lol watching the typical pile on from lefties.

This is going to happen more often. It's not right, but it will. Journalism is in a dubious place at the moment. The negativity towards journalism as a whole right now is a case of 'some people who are part of a group do wrong, so **** all of them' that is ironically widely used and popularized by journalism the past years, to the point that I sometimes make that mistake too. I have most definitely become cynical about the intentions of journalists.

Like I keep saying, these things backfire.

Big deal. Conservative journalists constantly get attacked at Left oriented protests. Owen Shroyer, Kaitlin Binnet, and Faith Goldy come to mind who’ve been assaulted. You just don’t hear about them because the Left doesn’t report on their own dissidents.

Oh, and this!?!

https://youtu.be/qiiok76NQ4Q

@Sevenizz: the modern left has become bat-shit crazy like that

@Sevenizz: Yes of course this happens regardless of political spectrum. I remember bringing up Jeremy from youtube who got punched repeatedly by a krav maga instructor for having the 'wrong' political opinion, and IIRC that was not considered to be a big deal to most everyone here because he's not very popular I guess.

In fact Gencon determined Jeremy was a danger to their event for getting punched and banned him for life. The assailant? Not a problem, he was invited to sell things on Gencon, and they proceeded to try and silence and remove anyone bringing it up in conversation. A classic example of the bullied getting punished extra by those in power, and those in power rewarding and encouraging this sort of violent behavior to people they don't like. That happens all over the political spectrum, too.

If a significant part of the media keeps misrepresenting the truth and even refrain from correcting big factual mistakes that can have long-lasting consequences for the people involved, this will only get worse. That's not a threat, but a concern. Writing lies to get more clicks is going to backfire eventually. Those things can't go well forever. At some point you reach a boiling point, where people snap. And sadly, it tends to be the wrong people who end up hurt. I am sure that Ron did not have any ill intent but he was probably the easiest target at that time and place.

Journalists around the yellow vest protests have been attacked as well, because the population in France is done with them lying about the movement. They feel misrepresented, it lasted for many weeks, and some people snap. It's not right, but it does happen. Defamation is illegal for a reason. People read papers in the hope that some of the truth is kept intact. And that trust has been damaged. Yes this is not just something happening in the USA. Also in France, in the UK.

People are sheep. They follow their (cult) leader and trump applauds attacking the press. Both verbally and physically. He also said NOTHING about that being the wrong thing to do when it was done. And he knew what happened. Only takes one thug to lead the herd.

I just thought I would do what republicans like to do. You know, label an entire group something based on what a small subsect do. Of course, it's harder to deny when this stuff happens.

This reminds me of when Trump egged on violence at his campaign as well as when the republican candidate body slammed a reporter.

Once candidates partake in violence or a president whip a crowd into violence it becomes far more difficult to use the "only a small subsect" argument.

It's much easier to believe that Republicans are not electing their best, They're not electing you. They're electing people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them to congress. They're electing Conmen. They're electing pedophiles. They're electing rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yes this is what I mentioned too, and that sentence should be burned into everybody's mind in 2019. This is THE mistake that some people keep making and that has caused things to polarize and escalate.

I find that republicans get upset when you use their logic or direct quotes against them personally. Tell them that they're the ones who should be deported, or bring up a particularly awful quote by the Trump at the right moment, like when I brought up Trump's quote about killing judges when Brett Kavenaugh was confirmed, then suddenly saying such things is wrong and awful and how dare you.

It's amusing because, you know, it's what they have actively supported in the last couple of years.

Not surprising. Just more irresponsibility on Trump's part.

You'd think if he held any actual interest in improving journalism that he would encourage its betterment in constructive criticism and proactive measures, not tear its shortcomings down in derision with proclamations of adversarial contempt and encouragement (or at the very least complacency) of aggression and violence. The only reason he attacks the media is he views everything in it that fails to worship him as a personal slight or failure of recognition, woe to him, and Trump being Trump, he has to strike back regardless of truth or fact. "FAKE NEWS!" to Trump isn't about the news at all, it's 100% about Trump......as everything predictably is to the man.

As for those who support Trump's attacks on the media, many of his supporters understand the above, but they project their frustrations at the media onto Trump and love him for it regardless because they view the media as something being incredibly predisposed towards a liberal agenda. "FAKE NEWS!!" is simply another way of saying, "I don't believe they treat my views fairly, so I claim them illegitimate and wish them harm!"; it is the repudiation of that liberal agenda, and Trump affords them legitimate authoritative license to push such a narrative. Thus, things such as truth and facts are ancillary considerations to what drives the entire assault on the media in the first place. It all revolves around self-interest and partisan frustrations.

it's like a stupid convention...

Great rebuttal.

I can't imagine how bad that building smells.

@zaryia: Were not in a debate what is there to rebuttal?

@Serraph105: I find that frightening, when people become that blinded to the things they themselves are saying.

A majority of people in jail from violent crimes are democrats.

A majority of violence with actual political motivation is Republican.

So besides the obvious anti-republican and trump from the regulars.

The real question is why do they cover these rallies? why do they give Trump coverage if they get assaulted, Trump is the president sure, but being rallies are not part of that job, so why risk it? why give these people the spotlight or wait..........

A headline on page 10 would be enough and then get on with the real news.

Because they're journalists and he's the president. Why wouldn't the press cover speeches given by the most powerful man in the world? What a dumb question.

lol

It should be obvious. You can't expect us to defend the attack of a BBC Cameraman or Trump lying all throughout this rally.

Are they actually journalists, though? Seem more like propagandists, Tweeters, and Youtubers. And "constantly"? That is a bit of hyperbole. I thought the lefties were all a bunch of pansies, anyway :P

While I don't support violence against anyone for the most, there's a pretty large distinction between...

...attacking a member of the actual press who is simply recording the POTUS at what should be a peaceful rally...

...and attacking an instigator during a protest who is talking shit and comes from a propaganda outlet like Info Wars.

To clarify further: one guy is there, not saying anything, in an official capacity and get's attacked for no reason. The other goes and looks for trouble, with a camera, probably hoping to get attacked so they can record "crazy lefties".

*Oh, and, for the record, when picking your Martyrs, don't pick assholes that aren't actual journalists:

• Goldy was fired from her barely-legit right-wing media job for appearing on a a neo-nazi podcast. She believes that "white genocide" is a thing and is actually occurring. She's also a loser, I mean look at her going after [mayor of Toronto] John Tory and completely failing lol. Lame. I think what we have here is a woman who was probably made fun of a lot for her deep, contralto voice too much and needs to vent that anger somewhere...
• Owen Shroyer works for Info Wars and is a Sandy Hook "Truther". Is this kind of person ever really a victim of violent crime? More like a victim of what goes around comes around. Also, yet another loser.
• WTF is a Kaitlin Bennet? besides someone who found yet another way to spell the name "Caitlin" or "Katelyn" or...

Are these people really your heroes? The ones you want to defend?

I would almost be OK with the attack just to hear Trump say "We don't support this kind of behavior, and will press charges against the attacker".

But it will never happen. Something something good people on both sides something....

They are journalists, and contrary to the "fake news" claims, they actually want to show both sides of the spectrum.

Also, are you suggesting that they should expect to be assaulted at rallies, and should therefore not go? Jesus, what does that say about us? About our president?

What is the journalistic angle on a political campaign rally? is Trump going to say anything he hasn´t said before?

And no i am not suggesting they should expect anything it´s a free country and the media should like anyone else should, of course, be free to walk around without being assaulted. I am saying that they themselves expect something like that to happen so they can make a good story because otherwise who cares about rally number 200 in Trump land.

He might!

As for the rest of your statement, I think they are just doing their job. If Trump says something legitimately incriminating at rally 200, but the press only went to 180 rallies, that would be a complete failure of the 4th estate. It's the ugly, inglorious side of being a reporter, I wager; sometimes you might hear Trump say something significant, sometimes you might get the shit beat out of you, but most of the time it's probably just you being somewhere you don't want to be because that's your job. We all do busy work at jobs, I don't expect the media to be any different.

Well, sure he might but I think he has those rallies scripted down to the last sentence.

And sure they are doing their job but at the same time, they know it may get heated and they know Trump will point them out as "enemy of the people" So if they go there without security, it´s not the smartest thing and you could wonder about their motives. Which while I do agree should not be needed in 2019 in America the land of the free, you also don´t go into certain areas with expensive clothes and shoes and expect not to be mugged.

So you want the president to sway the public with no repercussions nor advance warning? The rest of the country has a right to see what's he's spouting to his cult....er fan base. Only then can we be vigilant.

Which public? the left claim that the people at the rallies are uneducated deplorable who are impossible to talk to. So why do you want to give Trump a line to the independent's voters who may get him re-elected?

Also, did you consider that if the media hadn´t given Trump so much media time, he would never have been able to get elected or create his "movement"

Oh, also I thought you backed the left´s agenda of silencing opponents because sharing a platform with them confirms their dangerous ideology.

Three strawmen in one post. Must be a record.

So, what you're saying is the press should prepare to cover a Trump rally the same way they prepare to cover inner city street crime.

Probably not the best case to make for that side.

Which is why you wonder why they keep given such a side, the media spotlight.

99% of the mainstreams media´s coverage is Trump and more Trump.

This is jacanuk we're talking about...

bu-bu-bu whatabout??

If you're trying to place blame of violence against the media on the media for simply being at a political event, I'd say your priorities are severely fucked.

But for just for the sake of considering this point, perhaps if the president's rhetoric and behavior weren't a constant, fast paced dumpster fire on wheels, there wouldn't be as much need for the media to cover it. As it stands, the pace of events such as cabinet members leaving, arrests being made, and antagonizing friend and foe alike is way too high to be ignoring any of these events.

Ha, no kidding.

my bad, please continue to enjoy the double standard, carry on.

#Fauxoutrage

so the behavior is acceptable because others do it too? is that he argument you're actually trying to make??

Guy pulling a gun on a person in a store wearing a MAGA hat says hi!

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/430656-man-arrested-for-pulling-gun-on-kentucky-couple-wearing-maga

This in no way refutes my factual statement.

1. Ad Hominem.

2. I merely stated facts, 1 example does not change the general data:

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/28/right-wing-warnings-pose-far-more-danger-america-than-left-wing-violence/?utm_term=.4c95ce9c886c

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016

https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/introducing-united-states-extremist-crime-database-ecdb

Not going to post all day showing how BOTH extremist on both sides are violent and fucking idiots. Hell you even have people on the left having to fake attacks to make points. I am not saying the right doesn't do stupid shit they do, but to try and deny the left doesn't do the same and at times more violent is bullshit. Hell some of your charts even show that shit. Just look at how violent the left was in 70's