A source with knowledge of the incident said the cemetery official tried to prevent Trump staffers from filming and photographing in a section where recent U.S. casualties are buried. The source said Arlington officials had made clear that only cemetery staff members would be authorized to take photographs or film in the area, known as Section 60.
When the cemetery official tried to prevent Trump campaign staff from entering Section 60, campaign staff verbally abused and pushed the official aside, according to the source.
Incidentally, their response to this was in the NYT:
An official with the cemetery tried to “physically block” members of Mr. Trump’s team, Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, said in a statement. Mr. Cheung added that the cemetery official was “clearly suffering from a mental health episode” and that the campaign was prepared to release footage of the confrontation to support its account of the clash. The campaign did not provide that footage after several requests.
Chris LaCivita, a top Trump campaign adviser, added in a separate statement that the cemetery official was “a disgrace and does not deserve to represent the hollowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.”
https://archive.is/REbXH#selection-901.0-905.206
Blaming mental illness on someone stopping them from exploiting recently dead service members for a political campaign is… pretty weird.
So someone who was clearly doing there job was getting very frustrated when, probably for the first time ever, they don’t listen or follow the rules? Guy lashes out because they are doing whatever they want and he is the one with mental health issues? I really wish the news stopped taking such a neutral stance on this crap and actually state who the problem is.
This is a form of bias on their part. They think or say it’s being balanced, but the lack of full factual disclosure is a choice. Bias can show up in other ways, too.
The length of a segment, for example. How long a topic is covered shows bias through emphasis or lack of emphasis.
Omission of details, over-covering points of view while ignoring others, when a story is covered, who covers the story, etc., may all seem unimportant, but they are choices.
Bias isn’t necessarily bad if it’s factual. To your point, someone should be stating who this individual was - even just generally - and state something along the lines of what you’re saying to refute the “mentally ill” allegations.
What full facts are you assuming they had? The claim that the cemetery official was having some kind of episode was made by
CivitasCheung. That is a fact. The claim that it was not the case has apparently not been made yet by anyone. Do you want the reporters to speculate about what they think really happened? I don’t.I didn’t say they did. I was speaking with exposition, not specificity. It was a nuanced and more broad discussion on the topic of bias in general.
Why is reading comprehension so hard for you? I wrote clearly.