this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in
what "citizen" journalism can become and to be honest I don't like
what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would
consider him a journalist.......
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what to think of this.......but I will say this I
don't
> 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" <compumavengal@>
> 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
> > >
> >
>
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.
