Former Public Radio Reporter Among Those Charged In Molotov Cocktail Attack Against Police Vehicles

A federal investigation resulted in charges against four people for their alleged involvement in fire bombings of police vehicles in Little Rock in August.

We have previously discussed attorneys arrested in attacks with Molotov cocktails during protests. One of the individuals charged in the firebombing of police cars during Black Lives Matter protests in Arkansas turns out to be a former public radio reporter, Renea Goddard, 22.  She is one of four charged in the slashing of police car tires and burning them with Molotov cocktails.

Goddard identifies herself on Twitter as president of Students for a Democratic Society.  She worked for Arkansas Public Media after being awarded the George C. Douthit Endowed Scholarship. She also worked as a “reporter and host” for KUAR Public Radio.

This was reportedly her second arrest connected to a Black Lives Matter protest. She was arrested with Brittany Dawn Jeffrey, 31, Emily Nowlin, 27, and Aline Espinosa-Villegas, 24.

As with the lawyers arrested in New York, such an attack shows a fundamental rejection of the role of reporters. It is an erosion of lines of separation from those we cover or represent.

In a way, it is the most extreme form of new advocacy for reporters.  There has been a steady erosion of bright lines for reporters in their neutrality and objectivity. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Now, Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Obviously, none of these individuals are calling for criminal acts from reporters but they have abandoned clear lines that once defined journalism. Few would contemplate firebombing as a form of advocacy but there has been a loss of clarity in the roles of reporters in the last four years that undermine the entire profession.  I am less concerned about those who are willing to take violent action (which remain thankfully few in number) than I am about the many who view journalism as just another form of social and political advocacy.

A federal investigation resulted in charges against four people for their alleged involvement in fire bombings of police vehicles in Little Rock in August.
Department of Justice

 

57 thoughts on “Former Public Radio Reporter Among Those Charged In Molotov Cocktail Attack Against Police Vehicles”

  1. It looks like we have a person that went from journalism to criminal behavior. Unless she is trying to portray potential behavior as journalism, I do not see the problem. Goddard is arrested and charged for behavior, not reporting on said incident. This is a person that lost her way and will pay a price if found guilty.

    I understand Professor Turley’s lament of the erosion of journalistic standards and usually I am not in disagreement, but in this case it seems like blaming bank robbing on journalism because the robber was a reporter is like blaming bank robbing on police because the robber was a cop. It is bad behavior because of the action of one person and not the entire institution.

    The larger lament may be correct, but not by using this example.

    1. No, I agree with Professor Turley. You can’t see the forest if you don’t connect the dots with this woman, a former pubic radio reporter no less, now an active participant in violence that could led to deaths. If she wasn’t going so off the beam with her so-called journalism job I doubt she would have done this. It is the majority, no longer the minority, of journalism now in this country (especially from those we call the Mainstream Media — including former stalwarts as the NYT and Washington Post) which are now in full advocacy mode. This downward spiral from the practice of honest, fair, accurate and balanced journalism to promoting an idea and slanting the so-called facts leads to greater and more potent “advocacy.” If one can call hurling Molotov cocktails advocacy. Either a break with the erring news media to find other sources of information or they need to right themselves. If not it only get worse. Look at how the NYT rationalizes. These riots have gone on now for eight months and nothing but excuses. Yet polls show Americans are tired and disgusted with the violence. But the city leaders do nothing in the absense of intense coverage that includings showing Americans the video of these rioters, night after night.

  2. I would refer you to Fred Barnes critique of NPR’s coverage of Central America, published > 30 years ago. It’s employed sketchy characters for a long time.

    And you’ll recall that when NPR was formed, it’s first president was Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern’s campaign manager. Liberals have long thought that putatively common institutions were actually their property.

  3. Turley: “there has been a loss of clarity in the roles of reporters in the last four years that undermine the entire profession.”
    *****

    I like that phrase for being succinct and accurate.

    Now I would like to apply it to judges too.

    1. The last four years? Judges have been increasingly troublesome since about 1937.

      I suspect reporters have been on the left for decades, though at one time less thoroughly than today and at one time restrained by editors working for publishers – note that Dorothy Kilgallen was, ca. 1950, the most prominent reporter in the United States and decidedly non-liberal in her political outlook; she was a loyal Hearst girl. During the Newseum era (1975 +/- 20 years), they were uniformly liberal as were the editors but still restrained by professional canons from engaging in gross political propaganda. I doubt you can recruit people of calibre to work in the media anymore. The insecurity of your employment repels people who are of sufficient calibre to have other options and the increasingly dirty and dishonest character of those so employed also repels.

      1. Art- Well said. I liked Dorothy Killigalin. She was smart and well spoken and may have been murdered when she was about to break a big story.

        1. Miss Kilgallen was a bright spirit – intelligent, entertaining, accurate in her reporting, provocative in her personal observations. She belonged to a time that was still reasonably civilised.

  4. Turley: “There has been a steady erosion of bright lines for reporters in their neutrality and objectivity.“

    How ironic coming from a person who is gainfully employed by, and happily serves to bolster, the most partisan mainstream news outlet- FOX! Come on, Professor, who do you think you are fooling? I suppose you would say that Hannity, Carlson, Pirro, Watters, Ingraham, etc., are not reporters, but rather opinion hosts. As if their viewers do not take their news from these hosts! They are Fox News! They are not merely biased- as we all are one way or the other- they are prejudiced, that is to say, their stories are curated to oppose CNN and MSNBC in order to discredit their reporting in a competition for ratings. Can you honestly deny the fact that whatever CNN and MSNBC reports, Fox must claim the opposite in order to justify its existence?

    1. Turley’s hypocritically false pretense to objectivity, while constantly criticizing others only on the opposing team is gag worthy. Just own it man. You’re in the tank for Trump and the GOP and have been for a long time. This guy is a Democrat like I’m up for 6th man of the year in the NBA.

      1. Friday. I do think Turley is not lying about his party affiliation or his politically left leaning sentiments. Presumably his defense of Trump in the Impeachment made him persona non grata at the 2 mainstream media networks at which he used to work. Many CNN and MSNBC rejects are hired by Fox if they turn on their former employers and begin repeating Fox’s competitive narrative of MSM “media bias.” Turley is certainly willing to lambast the networks on which he used to unashamedly appear, but to date has yet to say one word against his current disreputable employer! Which is why he will probably never be willing to expose himself to an open forum wherein he can be questioned and ridiculed publicly for his loyalty to Trump TV (apart from Newsmax, OAN and Infowars) until he resigns. He supposes that he can appear above the polarized fray by asserting that he faults both sides thus proving his objectivity. But in this culture war, inevitably he will be forced to choose a side. For not unlike Birtherism, Trumpism demands absolute allegiance because ANY criticism of its narrative amounts to a betrayal by undermining every effort to deny any credence to those exposing its lies.

      2. Ah Joe says Turley is no Democrat. That is funny. Well who knows he might change parties but I doubt it. This reminds me. I was just informed last week by a friend that he and his family are Republicans now. No names here and in this instance, the names would be known.

        They are typical Chicagoans, Irish & Italian, 19th century arrivals, gained success in education law and finance over generations, then migrated from city to suburbs, were conservative in the usual Catholic ways, but had remained still Democrats. I didn’t expect this remark and it caught me off guard. I knew he voted for Obama but he “confessed” that he had voted for Trump–twice.

        I will repeat one other thing he said: the future of the Republican party is as a working man’s party. Now if they only get their sh*t together like the Democrats

        oh wait one more thing., “That fat billionaire Jay Pritzker is destroying Illinois”

        We met for lunch. Across the state line in Indiana– where you can still eat inside at a restaurant in peace.

        Casinos are open there too. Headed there tonight for some baccarat with my Chinese & Viet friends. Funny thing how some of them say they like Trump now too. Imagine that! Well, they are entrepreneurs and most small business people don’t like being locked down and losing money because of an ineffective so-called “public health measure” that everybody knows was a stupid, opportunistic Democrat party trick to punish the hated Trump no matter what the expense to people who work for a living.

        Happy New Year

        Sal Sar

    2. Jeffrey, please alert everyone when Tucker Carlson is arrested for throwing Molotov Cocktails.

      Until that happens, you have no valid juxtaposition.

      Perhaps your “Shiksa” girlfriend can explain that to you.

        1. Unlike you Joe, I like all women. I have a long history of being an equal opportunity kind of guy when it comes to good looking ladies.

          Jeffrey is the bigoted putz who brought up his Shiska girlfriend.

  5. Welfare/public radio and television are unconstitutional and may/must be pursued in the free markets of the private sector.

    Communists are not the taxpayers burden.

    Congress has no authority to tax for Individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth, merely “…general Welfare…,” per Article 1, Section 8 – roads, water, sewer, electricity, trash collection, etc.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are mortal enemies of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, America and Americans.

  6. OMG. From the actions of ONE FORMER reporter we get “In a way, it is the most extreme form of new advocacy for reporters.”

    And Turley thinks his opinions regarding the press are purely objective and unbiased. It’s a joke.

    1. Your ebook “34 Things I Know Will Fit In My Ass” sold on Amazon received terrible ratings. It seems people were not interested in your, ahem, skillsets of placing objects in your head.

    2. “Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose.

      “Some advocacy journalists reject that the traditional ideal of objectivity is possible in practice, either generally, or due to the presence of corporate sponsors in advertising. Some feel that the public interest is better served by a diversity of media outlets with a variety of transparent points of view, or that advocacy journalism serves a similar role to muckrakers or whistleblowers.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

      Maybe Turley’s never heard of it. It’s not new.

      “Nineteenth-century American newspapers were often partisan, publishing content that conveyed the opinions of journalists and editors alike. These papers were often used to promote political ideologies and were partisan to certain parties or groups.”

    3. YYY — I think Professor Turley is highly biased in favor of objective journalism, as am I.

      I doubt that any journalist can be completely objective no matter how great her effort, but when a “journalist” unabashadly and unapologetically abandons the effort of being objective in order to further her cause, I think Professor Turley has a point.

      I’ve noticed that “advocacy journalists” perform their art in 2 ways: the first is simply to misrepresent facts or context. That’s often fairly easy to spot.

      But the other limb of advocacy journalism is simply to not report something. Rather like the MSM did with the Hunter Biden laptop story. That kind of advocacy is much, much harder to identify.

      I too am fearful of the “advocacy journalist” trend and the attacks on the First Amendment.

      1. “But the other limb of advocacy journalism is simply to not report something.”

        THAT is the reason — (one sufficient reason) — why unbiased journalism is impossible. No one outlet can report on everything, selection is unavoidable. So even if an outlet is fair and accurate in everything they do report, their bias will show in what they do and don’t report.

        The bottom line is that none of us are unbiased and that includes journalists. The best we can do is be open and transparent about our biases so our audience can take them into account.

        1. YYY – Please carefully re-read the paragraph beginning with: “I doubt that . . .” In fact, you might like to re-read my entire comment.

          You will notice that I did not suggest that completely objective reporting is even possible. (quite the opposite). So you and I are in agreement.

          In my mind, when news media willfully and deliberately suppress entire stories (Hunter Biden’s laptop springs to mind, as does President Trump’s accomplishment in bringing some measure of peace between Israel and the Arab states of UAE, Qatar and Morocco ) we enter an entirely different universe from one in which the media fails to mention the race of a suspected bank robber.

          You have every right to believe that the public was best served when the media suppresses stories like the Hunter Biden story.

          And you are free to believe that the public was equally well served by the media mostly ignoring the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab countries.

          For the time being, I respectfully disagree with you, but I’m open to having my mind changed.

          1. “You have every right to believe that the public was best served when the media suppresses stories like the Hunter Biden story.”

            I didn’t suggest anything like that. I’m not arguing in favor of biased reporting, I’m arguing for its acceptance as an unavoidable reality. And the Hunter Biden story was covered, though not by the portion of MSM that had a strong — and glaringly obvious — bias for Biden in the election. Anyone who wanted to learn about it could have done so. Anyone who gets their news from a variety of sources (because they know that all sources are biased) would have heard about it.

            1. I wrote: “You have every right to believe that the public was best served when the media suppresses stories like the Hunter Biden story.””

              You wrote: “I didn’t suggest anything like that. I’m not arguing in favor of biased reporting, I’m arguing for its acceptance as an unavoidable reality.

              I know exactly what you’re doing.

              You are drawing an ethical/moral equivalence between the media not reporting the race of a suspected bank robber AND the media suppressing potentially election-changing stories of the magnitude of the Hunter Biden story.

              You are saing that since littering and murder are both violations of the law, they are more similar than they are different.

              You have every right to believe as you do.

              You wrote: “And the Hunter Biden story was covered, though not by the portion of MSM that had a strong — and glaringly obvious — bias for Biden in the election.”

              Well, Tyler O’Neill can put your point into perspective: As it happens, the medias squelching of both the Middle East Peace Accords and the Hunter Biden Computer story made it into his “10 Worst” list: https://tinyurl.com/y7gex5qw

              IMO, in both instances the medfia’s suppression of a major news story probably had a major effect on the election.

              Check out what he has to say wrt the Hunter Biden Computer story (his #2): ” . . . nearly half of Biden voters (45.1 percent) said they did not know about the financial scandal involving Biden and his son Hunter. According to MRC, full awareness of the scandal would have led 9.4 percent of Biden voters to abandon the Democrat, flipping all six of the states to Trump.”

              And then, wrt the media ignoring the Middle East Peace deal (his #3): ” . . . 43.5 percent of respondents who said they voted for Joe Biden said they had no idea about the agreements. Five percent of Biden voters said they would changed their votes had they known. This seems a small percentage, but if 5 percent of Biden voters hadn’t voted, Trump would have won the election.”

              And, of course his #1 was social media suppressing the Hunter Biden computer story . . . and: “It was bad enough that legacy media outlets refused to cover the Hunter Biden scandal. It was arguably far worse for them to celebrate and abet social media’s suppression of the story on false pretenses.”

              You wrote: “Anyone who wanted to learn about it could have done so. Anyone who gets their news from a variety of sources (because they know that all sources are biased) would have heard about it.”

              IMO, THAT’s pretty thin gruel: It is an assertion that cannot be falsified.

              Once again, I strongly support your right to your opinion.

              I am not persuaded, but I strongly support your right to your own opinion.

      1. Of course. When you do not agree with another’s opinon or viewpoint, you resort to smears and insults. Typical small-minded libtard.

        1. “…you resort to smears and insults. Typical small-minded libtard.”

          Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

          But, hey, carry on.

  7. Anybody got a racial background on those charged in these BLM riots? Admittedly I’m not paying that much attention, but of the few I see in the DNC propaganda machine, lots of them are not Black. I would think Blacks would be the must agitated and subject to arrest.

    1. “I would think Blacks would be the most agitated and subject to arrest.”
      ***

      They seem more inclined to loot than protest. Actually makes more sense than stupid virtue signaling. Criminal, of course, but it isn’t as serious as doing a cut and curl for a customer in a salon.

  8. According to Andy Ngo she goes by “The Slutty Asian Teen” (22 yo), is a Marxist lesbian and she’s angry at the US for saving South Korea from communism. I’ll never understand why people with these beliefs don’t leave and go to countries where they’ll live according to their beliefs and find happiness? I’m sure Venezuelan or Cuban radio would jump to hire her.

    Hopefully if convicted she can broadcast on J-A-I-L FM and give reports on the flavor jello being served that evening.

  9. While roles are blurring for reporters, the same can be said for the reception that will be given to reporters.

    If reporters have become advocates for one side, they cannot complain (too much) if they are perceived as enemy combatants and treated as such.

    Makes the day when ordinary Americans (and not just hyper-politicized media people) feel the need to “do something”.

    The media needs to speak up about the road that we are on; just read about the days before the Spanish Civil war.

          1. Yeah, what happened to Juicy Whatever for committing a fake hate crime to stir up racial hostility?

            Probably in line for a job with the Kamala/Biden admin? Does he know how to change adult diapers? May be a useful job for him.

          2. Commie-Lie Willy’s-Ho-Riss will NEVER be a “natural born citizen” and it will NEVER be eligible for vice or president.

            Both its parents were foreign citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth and it can never be more than a simple “citizen,” eligible only for Congress or the Senate.

            This whole corrupted 2020 election is a hoax and a fraud, inclusive of Commie-Lie Willy’s-Ho-Riss’ “fake” status.

            Joke Buydem and Commie-Lie Willy’s-Ho-Riss should be thrown in prison with all the other co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

            TRUMP WON!

        1. Olly, that is the appropriate response to a nut. These outlaws on the left should have been arrested day 1. A lot of lives, jobs and property would have been saved.

        2. 1-10 for a destructive device, other charges less consequential and concurrent, first time offender minus time factor, aimed at police plus time factor. I am betting on 3-5

          Im no expert on the FSG but that’s my guess

          Sal Sar

          1. Sentencing guidelines are a mystery to me. As far as I know, she will sue for excessive use of force and they’ll let her walk for time served.

Leave a Reply