Has anyone noticed a marked difference in tone between CNN live coverage and CNN London on Ferguson?

[Leopolds Ghost]

"outside agitators"

CNN early-morning London time zone coverage, which comes across as a News Corp. thing, with two vapid botoxed Brits propounding about the situation in Ferguson as if they had never heard of Missouri before, and the anchor is a black man... but both he and his on-site correspondents raving about "outside agitators" and making strong, explicit distinctions (entirely ignorant of the history of US freedom of assembly law and civil rights law) between "licensed journalists, legitimate protestors, and angry people who are agitators. These agitators..." etc. They also have no regard whatsoever for the militarization of the police, or police mistreatment of minorities, since that is the norm in Britain and condoned under law there where most minorities are immigrants or "chavs" who are legally distinct from the rest of the population.

[KittyWampus]

1. No, but I'm glad mention of outside agitators being mentioned.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Who needs outside agitators when you have disagreeable people in your own party?

No, I'm not implying anything.

[LiberalArkie]

3. I remember in the south the term "Outside Agitators" being used a lot

back in the 60's and 70's. Officials saying that it was the outside agitators causing all the problems not OUR DARKIES. It was used in Little Rock way back. It was usually meant that it was not our BOYS wanting to end segregation but those outside agitators.

edit
It was funny that when the KKK was agitating the whites, the term was never used.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. Yep.

You'd think the Brits would bone up on that given they're on CNN late night. Then again they don't seem to know where Missouri is located, mentioning "it's been said that black people are upset with the way police are treating them in that part of the country"

I wonder if CNN London is News Corp affiliated.

on edit:
I should add that the two American journalists for CNN early morning coverage (anyone remember their names) are all over this agitator bullshit, they were agressively repeating the line that all the trouble was being caused by agitators on the protestor side of the line, and even making the distinction between "ordinary citizens" and "angry protestors".

They had no problem with the idea of police wading in and arresting everyone in the crowd for "congregating" who did not have a "reason to be there" i.e. black males, non-media. Just confirming what is going on here.

[hexola]

5. I think the notion of "outside agitators" is a racist meme

This is a suburb of big city...like Rockville is to DC...

"Outsiders" make it sound like this is an insular small town in rural America - "and the nasty blacks have come down to rob us, because thats what they do..."

From the perspective of the store owners - I can understand calling them "outsiders" (not from the immediate neighborhood)...but from the perspective of the greater citizenry - they are fellow citizens of the same city.

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. I agree... and it implies that "outsiders" have no 1st amendment right to protest

I am wondering what all this means for the right to protest in this country given the Media and Commander Johnson have settled into the automatic assumption that people do not have the right to congregate and that a black man can be legally distinguished from a white reporter for "illegally loitering" right there at the protest.

I realize they wanted to defuse the situation but the latest tactic seems to be to weed thru crowds and ask to see credentials, and everyone there who is a black male standing on public or private property who does not have "credentials" gets thrown to the ground and arrested.