journalists or not. Join the Society of Professional Journalists.
Membership Categories
Membership Center > Prospective Members > Membership Categories
Professional
You spend more than half of your time working as a journalist or j-
educator. $72 for 1 year.
Retired
You are retired and 62 or older. $36 for 1 year.
Associate
You don't qualify for the above but support SPJ's mission. $90 for 1
year.
Household
You share living quarters with an existing SPJ professional member.
$36 for 1 year.
College Student/Post Grad
College through two years after graduation. $36 for 1 year.
Then you are a card bearing "profesional" journalists subject to the
rights as a journalist are guaranteed under the First Amendment.
http://www.spj.org/
I Believe that it is now time for us to start pressuring the SPJ to
create a new membership Caregorie
citizen journalist
--- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], 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.
