[flagged]
If they want sympathy, they probably should lay out the details of their actions more clearly. This just reads as some juveniles went to an event, tried to rile up an official (while filming the response in hopes of getting a juicy clip), then were surprised when they were kicked out.
To me, it does feel a bit like some journos looking for clout. Kaitlan Collins is the poster child for this type abuse from Trump even if she's not being manhandled by police.
Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well.
Not so sure. If the security at the event said "these people are active threats to security", then its the police's job to remove the threat and then investigate.
However it should now be on those lying about it that made the accusation to prevent their evidence, and if that's not good enough then to revoke their diplomatic credentials.
If the event was a private function as it appeared to be, then removing them is fine, but from the report it sounds like more accusations were made then "these people are no longer allowed at our event", and like the boy who cried wolf, that's where the problem needs to be sorted.
They are legit but have a tiny audience, this accident made them instantaneously recognizable.
Good for them, we are all fed up with Politico (Axel Springer) + Euractiv (Mediahuis) duopoly.
P.S. This is just IMO, but De Wever should not have gone to the event, he lost a lot of political capital there. He should have given the ground to Theo Francken and Vansina to do their clown thing and instead he should have traveled 100km to the Florennes airbase to assist at BAFS-2026 that happened at the same time.
A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera.
So it's always worth asking "is this a credible source". It used to be fairly easy, to be a journalist you had to have significant backing from a significant institution.
If "Joe Bloggs" writes an article about how "antifa thugs" ejected him as a "legitimate journalist" from covering a DNC convention, when in actual fact he was a January 6th agitator who went in with a fake ID and tried to get back stage, he's not going to write the second part.
This outlet isn't widely known, it's reasonable to ask "is this something legitimate or some deranged muskovite on twitter". Had they been reporting for the Guardian or Al Jazzera that would be the initial level of legitimacy, as they weren't it's reasonable to ask "did this actually happen, did it happen like they say"
Just because a story matches your (and my) view of the world (that trump is a devastating danger to the world and to america that should have been in jail a decade ago) doesn't mean you can simply like/share/subscribe to any story which appears to fit that narrative
Now sure, a brief look around this site shows this isn't the typical youtuber/twitter shock-jock, but the question should be asked before you can establish the credentials of the reporter
(Or are you just trying to derail?)