Did you actually read the article?

The Belgian police got the information that the person would be an 'active threat' which is just absolutely bizarre and explains the somewhat 'hasty' reaction of the police to quickly remove that person from the event before asking further questions. After they realized their mistake they apologized but of course at that point the journalist wasn't allowed back in.

The ambassador essentially swatted the journalist.

Yes.

I quoted something from deep in the article.

Did you read my entire comment, and assume the least bit of positive intent?

I acknowledged the main points the article brought up. I highlighted a glaring discrepancy, from my point of view.

When police act unjustly, hastily, or rash, in my country, it gets at least equal weight (typically more). We don't just focus entirely on the person or party who triggered the reaction.

Anyways, the reason I commented anything at all was, as someone who values true unbiased and objective journalism, something we need now more than ever, this is clearly falling short of their stated goals -- from their editorial policy:

"Doing journalism means taking responsibility for the public. We are aware of our biases and strive not for artificial objectivity but fairness."

Seems like a complete lack of awareness of the strong Anti-american bias, and a lack of taking responsibility for the Belgian public.