Arkansas far-left journalist among 4 charged in BLM firebombings of police vehicles: report
By: Dom Calicchio (Fox News)
Another clickbait news story. While the news story, itself, is unremarkable and not particularly newsworthy, the story does raise questions about journalism as a whole.
What should be the ethical standards for journalism? Renea Baek Goddard was not acting as a journalist but has worked as a journalist. Is the public expected to believe that Goddard's rather obvious biases did not influence her journalism?
When does the activism of journalists begin transforming journalism into propaganda? In the past, such over zealous journalism was regulated by editorial review before publication. Today's social media allows so-called citizen journalists direct access to the public that bypasses editorial review. News organizations are being forced to compete with so-called citizen journalists who are not bound by ethical or editorial standards for journalism.
Ethical standards for journalism are suffering because of lax editorial oversight. The rise of so-called citizen journalism has bypassed any sort of review process that regulates activist journalism becoming propaganda. Obviously social media has played a role in undermining ethical standards for journalism. Haven't social media outlets placed themselves in an editorial position? What role should social media outlets have toward maintaining and applying ethical standards for journalism?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A far-left journalist working in Arkansas was among four suspects formally charged last week in connection with the firebombings of police vehicles during Black Lives Matter protests during the summer, according to reports.
Federal authorities alleged that Renea Baek Goddard, 22, was associated with a group that tossed Molotov cocktails toward Little Rock Police Department vehicles on Aug. 25 as a large crowd demonstrated outside the department's 12 Street Substation, the Post-Millennial reported.
The four suspects were arrested following a months-long investigation by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the report said, citing a Dec. 17 news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
"Today's arrests send a message that violence targeted toward law enforcement will not be tolerated," U.S. Attorney Cody Hiland stated in the release, according to FOX 16 of Little Rock. "Breaking into a police compound and firebombing a police vehicle with a homemade explosive device is clearly not a peaceful protest."
Goddard was previously arrested and charged with obstructing government operations in violation of a local curfew during a BLM protest on June 2, with a court appearance scheduled for Jan. 22 in that case, the Post-Millennial report said.
The journalist has worked for KUAR Public Radio in Little Rock, contributed to the LGBTQ news outlet Autostraddle and interned for Arkansas Public Media after attending the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, according to the report.
Renea Baek Goddard, 22, was associated with a group that tossed Molotov cocktails toward Little Rock Police Department vehicles, authorities say. (Little Rock Police Department)
Photos of Goddard posted online included an image of her in a nun-like outfit with a see-through top and slit-open leather skirt.
"As more and more white supremacists try to rebrand themselves, journalists have a responsibility to be vigilant," Goddard wrote in 2019 on the news site Truthout. "There needs to be an end to this farce that neutrality necessitates taking a centrist position."
The other three suspects charged last week also have been linked to far-left activism, according to the report.
Brittany Dawn Jeffrey, 31, is accused of allowing activists to use her home for assembling incendiary devices, and live-streamed her arrest on Facebook on Dec. 17, according to the Post-Millennial. The video initially showed her refusing to get out of her car when police approached her, the report said.
Jeffrey has numerous previous arrests, including one on July 12 for criminal trespassing as BLM activists demonstrated at a Conway, Ark., business after a former employee there was accused of racism. She is expected to face trial Jan. 14 in connection with that case, according to the report.
The other suspects facing charges were identified as Aline Espinosa-Villegas, 24; and Emily Nowlin, 27.
Espinosa-Villegas is described in the Post-Millennial report as "a transsexual Chilean national … who uses 'xe' pronouns and goes by the pseudonym, 'Loba de Valparaiso'" The word "loba" translates to "she-wolf," or b----.
Espinosa-Villegas was being held in the Pulaski County Detention Center without bail in connection with federal charges, the report said.
Nowlin, in addition to the firebombing of the police vehicles, also faces charges of misdemeanor disorderly conduct for joining others in blocking traffic during a June 2 protest, the Post-Millennial reported.
All four defendants made their first court appearance Dec. 17 in Little Rock, the report said.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
How should we avoid over zealous and obviously biased journalists publishing propaganda? Does the ethical standards for journalism need to be applied to so-call citizen journalists? Should social media outlets play a role in maintaining the ethical standards for journalism?
Yes, yes [&] yes. Btw Goddard also has a previous arrest in June for allegedly obstructing governmental operations while violating curfew.
[[delete]]
Does anyone know her education?
According to her LinkedIn account, she graduated from the University of Arkansas/Little Rock last year with maybe something in "journalism". She also identifies as an amateur "porn star".
As noted, she has a history of radical "activism".
So many graduates involved in the summer of violence!
More corroborating info HERE and HERE .
I'm not sure that's workable. Kind of like prisoners running the prison. Perhaps it needs to be in the constitution or some such. I'm sure we can come up with an ethical standard that would apply to all equally. Something that differentiates an actual news piece from the nearly total diet of propaganda all sides are feeding us. Right now a lot of what should be labeled as "OPINION" is being passed as actual news. They can continue to put out opinion pieces if they want but they should be required to differentiate it from actual news.
Legislating behavior via the Constitution?
Always.
Obviously this story is just more far right wing lying propaganda.
Seems lying and organized propaganda is all the far right have anymore.
So point out the lies.
It should be easy to do if they are that blatant.
Your opinion is devoid of any facts, and must therefore be labeled as leftist propaganda
I agree, but I think most do that on their own accord. Although almost ALL news we consume today on any media is more "views" than it is "news", to varying degrees of course. That is the purpose of debate and discussion in venues like this, to distill the news/views down to the base facts and form one's own opinion on any particular subject. It is certainly possible that folks can view the same set of facts differently and come to differing opinions/conclusions. Or as we see often, some folks might feel that certain facts need to be made known while others find those same facts not particularly newsworthy. Some are more, or less, rational, reasonable, or honest than others in their examination of those facts.
The one thing we should avoid though IMHO is the automatic dismissal and/or suppression of various sources simply because we don't like them. Sometimes another view is what we need to get to the root facts or truth to the extent that we can. Sure some sources will be less reliable than others and we are free to point out the areas where they play fast and loose with the facts or conclusions, but even such sources can uncover some things that other sources might overlook or simply don't care to investigate further.
Also the context in which a source is used is important. For example, Vic used a source from Breitbart to present a fact about Ms. Goddard that I was able to corroborate in two law enforcement sources at comment 1.1.3 above. Yet his citation of that source was flagged, ticketed, and deleted as "questionable". Certainly Media Bias Fact Check characterizes Breitbart as a far right leaning source with a "Mixed" designation in terms of being factual. However, The Daily Kos, for example, has the same rating on the opposite end of the bias spectrum and we see that source cited here all the time without being deleted as "questionable". My point being that perhaps neither should be deleted or dismissed as propaganda right out of the gate, but instead we can discuss where that source may have gone awry in terms of the facts and how they are presented on the specific topic being discussed or claim(s) being made. Or we can take it upon ourselves to either corroborate the facts, or prove that the information is inaccurate or otherwise dishonestly presented. Isn't that the purpose, and the beauty, of a venue like this?
Breitbart is banned for being questionable AND the in the bar graph the ball is clearly in the arrowhead extremity.
Daily Kos is almost there going the opposite direction but has neither the ball as far left as Breitbart is to the right,
nor is it listed as a questionable source.
That is why Daily Kos currently passes while Breitbart does not.
As you said, there are multiple approved sources which can validate a seed without referring to a banned source.
Unfortunately there are several pages of rules that have been developed over more than a decade and for the most part
voted upon by the membership. Banned is banned without exceptions, IMHO for good reasons...
Understood. And for the record that is precisely what I try to do when I cite sources and would highly recommend that others do as well. But my point is that even this questionable source was clearly correct with respect to the facts in this case, and/or such sources can help lead one to the unbiased facts that other sources might rather we just don't see at all.
But thanks for pointing out the differences in the MBFC ratings. I suppose I distrust any source who's bias bubble strays much at all from the center, and certainly would hesitate to cite either of those sources directly when supporting my arguments due to their extreme bias. But I might look at them to get another perspective and see if they can help connect me to the more reliable source data/facts.
Of course you would, regardless of where on the left Daily Kos landed.
Whatever floats yer boat.
Hardly, but your are entitled to your own opinions
"Give unto Cesar, that which is Caesar's"
Sites are private entities with rules and conditions.
You entered into an agreement to accept the Terms of Service and those rules in the CoC.
Don't like them, then spend your time elsewhere, I'm sure the world and NT will continue just fine.
Why make such an asinine statement?
No one here worships the rules or MBFC.
Most respect the rules and try to treat each other like members of one big family,
You should try it instead of condemning & insulting half of the members and visitors on a daily basis.
Just a thought.
I'd distrust them equally, but I have no issue checking them out to get another view point and then doing the due diligence to check the sources and facts they present and evaluate the conclusions they draw. The more obviously bias a source appears, the more skeptical my approach, and the deeper I'll dig for the root facts or the corroboration of the claims made by such sources. If one approaches a source seeking only to hear what one wants to hear, then due diligence hasn't been done and critical thinking dies in the womb.
Oh if only that were true. I'd really like to believe that, and I've certainly been a champion of that result, but my experience here (and at NV) points me to the word "some" rather than "most" in your statement. Maybe, someday "most" will fit and that will be a great day, worth striving for.
I think for the most part most of us could get along, even with policy difference.
I just think, like most places, there will always be people that just want to disrupt.
I remember a time on NV, mainly in Buttheads where we blocked all political and religious article for a few days
and people who by all previous appearances despised one another over said issues
had a blast on Trout's article about women who fish. Articles about music and food often create strange bedfellows.
The few liars and trolls remained so and we blocked them for 90 days at a time.
People were much less polarized after 8 years of Obama than 4 years of Trump.
JMHO
Thanks FW
That may well be true. But what is also true is that there will always be disagreement as to the meaning of the word "disrupt" in this context. Some will view anything that does not fall in line or lock step with their ideology as a "disruption". Perhaps if we considered other viewpoints as just that, rather than simply dismissing them as "disruptions", we could have more rational and reasonable discussions that don't need to be so contentious.
At some point, if we really want "most" people to respect the rules and treat each other like one big family, then we need to make an honest effort to understand them, just as we would do with our own family members. If they continue breaking the rules and making no effort to reciprocate our efforts then we know they aren't here for the right reasons. But if we don't make an effort ourselves, then we have no right to expect that they will.
Come on, we've all been around the block...
Haha
I think a lot of times people get bored too. We talk to the same people day after day. Someone is sure to cause a little drama every now and then.
And some of us have been mugged in the alley... (-:
Some don’t want to go around the block or make any effort to really get to know their neighbor. And that too can be an impediment to becoming one big family.
I hope she goes away for a very long time.
And also that she looks hard at her life choices and manages to change.
Knew the warden and garrison commander at Leavenworth. We played golf together and talked about famous prisoners.
Sometimes would hit balls off of the warden's patio and trustees would shag them for us. My job at the time was being an independent medical examiner.
Even though I always expected that the gates would open for me once I finished my job, it was always scary knowing I was locked in with a thousand military trained killers.
Steel gates slamming shut behind you is never a good sound even if you're just visiting.
Agreed.