Josh - I hope you understand I was commenting on the whole of the
thread at that time and not just "your" paticular part in it.  My
comments about journalism, is taken from the whole not just your
point of view.  I even added another post right after my first one to
try and clarify that a bit.  You are free to discount my comments if
you like but, I didn't feel that what I was commenting on I needed to
see the paticlur vlog in question.  Because in my mind I was talking
about the the question of weather "having a camera in hand makes
someone a journalist",   Again I will state for the record, I don't
like what has happened to you.  I think it is wrong, period.



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Heath, whether or not I am a "jounalist" is secondary to the issue
at 
> hand, as the real question is actually whether I was participating
in 
> newsgathering. You've stated yourself that you have not visited my 
> site and by that notion have not likely seen the video in
question, 
> until you check out the video (http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=76),

> have no issues in discounting what you have to say. Yes, it is
true 
> that I have a quote-enquote agenda, but at the same time, the 
> commercial media also has an agenda.
>
> The fact that my agenda is pretty clear from my posts and the name
of 
> my blog itself, validates my role as a journalist in my opinion.
The 
> problem with the media comes down to this fictitious issue of 
> objectivity, no one is objective. Sure we can make valiant efforts
to 
> counter our own biases but the fact remains that we, as human
beings, 
> as biased by nature, and I have made every effort to disclose my
own 
> personal biases; something I feel that the media neglects to do.
>
> Am I a journalist? I don't know, but from an historical
perspective, 
> it is important to remember that there was no such thing as
objective 
> journalism when the inclusion of a free press was written into the 
> constitution. During that time in American history, there was a 
> multitude of advocacy newspapers financed by the aristocratic
classes 
> which made up the "press." By reading the differing arguments, one 
> could come up with their own views as to how they came down on a 
> particular subject. It wasn't until many many years later that the 
> idea of an objective news media and the notion of journalism
schools 
> began to enter into the matter.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Heath 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________
> "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




Reply via email to