think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you
a "journalist".....To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is
that we no longer "trust" journalist's. You can very easily make the
case that the era of "objective" journalism is gone. I know I hate
looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone
is just "reporting" the news anymore. There are moments that it
happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That
is why "citizen" journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not
know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but
he said in one of the previous posts,
"I have created an excerpted video of what I saw
observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my
personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news
is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired."
That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and
NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that
your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean
that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand
so to speak on how traditional meadia reports.......then we have to
learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no
prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with
cameras.........but that is just my opinon......
PS I know some will say "you can't be objective" but we have to try,
we have to try...........
Heath - Batman Geek
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hey Josh, I think the short answer is "Yes." I'm quaking with anger
> just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the
> Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead.
>
> Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top
> secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents
to
> obtain his papers and "potential" classified documents.
>
> More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD
> attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J.
> Edgar's Boys? And LAPD?
>
> Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves.
> I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight.
>
> This is what I am confused about:
>
> If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist?
> Doesn't matter how I do it, via pen, photo or video. At that point
of
> creation doesn't the protections of journalists come into effect?
>
> If I have a body of work - either paid or unpaid that demostrates
that
> I have done this activity for x-amount of time then I should be
> protected under various journalism protections.
>
> Or if your local NBC station had the same video you did would the
Fed
> show up at the station door? What would the news director tell them?
>
> The label "profesional" does not matter. When the early African
> American journalists of 1800 - 1900's could not or would not be
> published by the existing media they created their own.
>
> They were not thought to be professionals by the mainstream white
> media at the time. Didn't matter. They were representing their
> communities that were not being servied by the publications of the
time.
>
> Are you not doing the same thing? Representing your community?
>
> I have to go but this post has me all shook up. This is a good
thing.
> Be safe Josh but do what you feel is right.
>
> And to our new federal lurkers,
>
> ...well, you know.
>
> Gena
>
> http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
> http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf <inthecity@> wrote:
> >
> > Should journalist Josh Wolf be afraid?
> > The Assistant U.S. Attorney, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force,
and
> > the SFPD want to get their hands on a video shot by a San
Francisco
> > blogger
> > By Ryan Blitstein
> >
> > http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-19/news/news.html
> > At times, Josh Wolf is a journalist. At others, he's a blogger,
an
> > activist, or an anarchist. At this particular time, one thing's
for
> > certain: He's got a videotape the federal government wants.
> >
> > The 23-year-old San Franciscan possesses a tape that Assistant
U.S.
> > Attorney Jeffrey Finigan deems essential to a grand jury
> > investigation of a protest last July that resulted in injuries to
two
> > San Francisco Police Department officers.
> >
> > To Wolf, the government subpoena of his tape represents a threat
to
> > his ability to gather news as an independent reporter. He
believes
> > it's yet another reel cast in a Justice Department fishing
expedition
> > that will stop at nothing to put his activist compatriots behind
bars.
> >
> > To the government, however, Wolf is a misguided, self-important
young
> > radical withholding evidence without legal justification.
Regardless
> > of the outcome, Wolf's predicament raises questions about how
much
> > information journalists should turn over to the federal
government,
> > and how the legal system handles those who draw little
distinction
> > between citizen journalism and citizen activism.
> >
> > Though many facts are disputed, all parties agree that Wolf
> > videotaped a July 8, 2006, protest march in San Francisco against
the
> > G8 Summit taking place in Scotland. At previous protests, Wolf
had
> > attended as an advocate for a cause, but this time he went as a
> > journalist, gathering footage for his videoblog, "The Revolution
Will
> > Be Televised" (www.joshwolf.net).
> > "Most of the time I go out, I feel like I'm a fly on the wall,"
Wolf
> > says. "Whether or not I agree with what they're doing, my role is
to
> > document it."
> >
> > On the portion of Wolf's video that he released publicly, dozens
of
> > protesters, some dressed in black and wearing face masks,
marched
> > down the street in the Mission carrying signs and placards with
> > anticapitalist, anti-government slogans or bearing the logo of
the
> > group Anarchist Action. Around dusk, things went awry; the tape
shows
> > marchers setting off fireworks and dragging metal newsstand
boxes
> > into the street to block traffic.
> >
> > SFPD Officers Michael Wolf (no relation to Josh) and Pete
Shields
> > were among those called to the scene to quell what was fast
becoming
> > a small riot, with protesters allegedly breaking windows of
> > businesses with baseball bats. When their patrol car was blocked
by a
> > very large foam sign under the chassis, the cops exited the
vehicle
> > near the corner of Valencia and 23rd. Wolf chased after a man he
> > suspected of placing the sign under the car. In Josh's video,
Officer
> > Wolf is shown struggling to cuff the suspect amid shouts of: "Get
off
> > him, you're choking him!" and "Hey cop, you're going to jail for
> > police brutality!" Above the din, Officer Wolf heard the sound
of
> > fireworks and saw smoke coming from the direction of his patrol
vehicle.
> >
> > Back at the car, Shields attempted to arrest someone lighting
> > fireworks under the vehicle, igniting the foam underneath.
Another
> > protester then struck Shields from behind. By the time Officer
Wolf
> > returned to the vehicle, his partner was bleeding profusely from
the
> > head, the victim of a fractured skull.
> >
> > Local law enforcement has charged three protesters with
misdemeanors.
> > The federal government now seeks justice on behalf of Shields,
as
> > well as investigating the damage to his vehicle.
> >
> > Because he was videotaping Officer Wolf at the time, it's
improbable
> > that Josh Wolf's tape also contains footage of Shields being hit
on
> > the head or of fireworks being placed under the patrol vehicle.
The
> > Justice Department is likely looking for something else that may
be
> > on his tape, though they won't divulge what that something is.
> >
> > Wolf doesn't want to give up the complete, unedited version of
the
> > tape. He believes the federal government is indiscriminately
> > monitoring antiwar groups under suspicion of terrorism, and as a
> > journalist he shouldn't be forced to surrender unused footage in
> > support of that investigation. He won't say, though, what's on
the 15
> > or more minutes of the confidential portion of video.
> >
> > Josh Wolf doesn't look like much of a revolutionary. With
slicked,
> > wavy hair, long sideburns, and the heels of his jeans fraying
over
> > Eurotrash sneakers, he seems more like a college kid (which he
is
> > he'll graduate from San Francisco State this May). Yet Wolf
believes
> > that the "corporate media" will collapse within a decade, and, as
co-
> > founder of various indie media-related projects, he hopes to
help
> > create the alternative that replaces it. But that future hasn't
> > arrived, so Wolf works as outreach director of a community
college
> > television station. When he realized his July protest video was
worth
> > something, he sold an edited version to local TV stations.
> >
> > A few days after the protest march, trouble arrived at his door,
in
> > the form of a geeky man carrying a briefcase. "Can I ask you a
few
> > questions?"
> >
> > Wolf thought the guy was a reporter. So he opened the entrance
gate
> > of the building and let him in.
> >
> > Then the man flashed his badge: FBI.
> >
> > The agent, his partner, and two SFPD investigators interrogated
Wolf
> > for an hour and a half about the protest. He doesn't remember
much of
> > what they asked, other than their wanting to know who struck
Shields.
> > Eventually, the investigators asked for his videotape, and Wolf
told
> > them he had to speak with his (at the time, nonexistent) lawyer.
Wolf
> > dialed the phone number ingrained in his head for years 205-
1011
> > the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. He learned that
the
> > authorities needed a subpoena to force him to give up the tape.
In
> > February, FBI agents served him with one.
> >
> > Two weeks ago, Wolf's pro-bono lawyers argued a motion in
federal
> > court to quash the subpoena before Judge Maria-Elena James. They
> > claimed that Wolf is protected by California's shield law, which
> > allows journalists to maintain confidential unpublished
information
> > obtained during newsgathering. The law lets journalists cast a
wide
> > net in reporting, even though they may end up seeing or hearing
> > actions that are illegal. Granting the government widespread
power to
> > request unused recordings, Wolf's lawyers argued, would turn
> > journalists into an arm of the Justice Department, creating a
> > chilling effect among citizens, thereby violating their First
> > Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.
> >
> > Of course, this contention assumed that Wolf, a self-appointed
> > citizen-journalist, is every bit as much a "professional" as the
men
> > and women with years of experience and an editor reviewing their
copy
> > something that's still a matter of debate among the media.
> > Nevertheless, as more Americans become self-appointed citizen
> > journalists, with camera phones and digital cameras and even
cheap
> > handheld video cameras, more "news" will come from people like
Wolf.
> >
> > Federal privilege law, which offers fewer protections for
journalists
> > than California law, applies in federal court. But it's unclear
which
> > federal crimes took place on July 8 and the government has made
very
> > little of the investigation public, although its court filing
argued
> > that protesters damaging a police vehicle, paid for partly with
> > federal funds, was enough to rouse suspicion of federal crimes.
> > Wolf's lawyers contended that the subpoena was an unreasonable
use of
> > federal power to aid local and state investigations.
> >
> > Wolf called the investigation an FBI witch hunt of anarchists,
> > pointing out that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has
monitored
> > many antiwar groups since 9/11, including Indymedia.
> >
> > To demonstrate that the subpoena was an unreasonable violation of
his
> > rights as a journalist, Wolf had to prove that the grand jury
was
> > overreaching. He'd been visited by members of the FBI's Joint
> > Terrorism Task Force and the SFPD together, and he cited other
recent
> > indiscriminate monitoring and prosecution of suspected anarchists
by
> > the Justice Department. However, without access to details of
the
> > grand jury investigation, there was little he could prove.
> >
> > On April 5, Judge James denied Wolf's motion to quash, partly
based
> > on an in camera (non-public) review of some portions of the
grand
> > jury investigation, which weren't shown to Wolf. It's likely that
the
> > government will now re-subpoena the tape.
> >
> > Wolf doesn't have many options. If he refuses to turn over the
tape,
> > he could wait for an arrest warrant, which might lead to jail
time if
> > he doesn't cooperate. Or he could wait until the government
obtains a
> > warrant to search his apartment, and make it very hard for them
to
> > find the video. There's also a slight chance of working out a
deal to
> > show the government only a portion of the tape.
> >
> > In her ruling, the judge noted that the protest took place in
public,
> > rendering Wolf's argument of reporter
confidentiality "meaningless."
> > Taken to its logical extreme, that reasoning means any recording
or
> > reporting done by anyone in public is not confidential, and is
the
> > equivalent of transforming the commons into a Big Brother-esque
> > monitored zone. Yet as long as the Justice Department suspects
that
> > some federal crime may have been committed, they can subpoena
> > anything that might be applicable to the investigation.
> >
> > "The Assistant U.S. Attorney said the government has the duty to
see
> > if anything suspicious occurred, and then determine if there's a
> > crime," Wolf says. "That's not a world I want to live in."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> > "We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into to
peace."
> > "Power to the peaceful!"
> >
> > Spearhead - Bomb the World
> >
>
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Use |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
