Josh, I listened to the interview AND read the transcript. I heard what I heard and I read what I read. I didn't get the impression that they were out of context, but I take you on your word for that. Please Please Please don't think for one minute that I was implying that you were anyway uncaring for the health and welfare of anyone. I don't think that at all and if I did, I wouldn't have used words like "honorable" and "courageous" to describe you.
I simply was commenting on your response to the hypothetical and what I thought I heard(i listened more than once) and read was an answer to the hypotheitcal question, in fact Sites offers two different scenarios using clearly conditional language. He was ratcheting things up a bit in the interview, but i'd say it was far from a confrontational interview. I take you at your word that it was taken out of context. I'm not one of these people who thinks you have to get paid to be a journalist, but i do think that SPJ code ain't a bad thing. If you ever want to talk more about these ideas, just drop me an email and I'll send you my phone number. Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vergenewmedia.com/ --- Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, Taken out of context, the words, "I wasn't > there to shoot that." > sound far different than the reality meant by the > statement. When I > state, "I wasn't there," I don't mean that wasn't my > mission or chosen > task, but that I literally wasn't there to shoot it. > Would a different > journalist have stopped filming the one cop who was > choking the Gabe > Meyers and investigated what was happening with the > other? Probably. > Should I have, maybe, but the fact of the matter was > that I didn't know > what was going on and felt that what I was filming > was newsworthy and > there was no reason to walk away and turn off the > camera. > > I learned that officer Shields had been injured when > a woman came > running towards the cop yelling "officer down," > shortly thereafter I > tried to venture over there but my attempts to get > over there were > rebuffed by the police and it did not seem like a > particularly good time > to assert my press rights. > > The hypothetical question that followed was an > equally problematic one, > and the fact of the matter is that, "I don't know," > was not an attempt > to dodge the question but rather my first response > and an honest one. > Had Keven provided some more breathing room in the > interview, "it > depends on what I'm filming at the time and if I > fully realize what's > going on." would have followed. > > Josh > > Jim Long wrote: > > > > Speaking of codes of conduct, journalists who are > > protected by shield laws look to this as their > code of > > conduct: > > > > http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp > <http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp> > > > > I'm with Enric here on the blogging code of > conduct > > declaration. It's a bit too groupthink for my > tastes. > > But for journalists who have an expectation of > shield > > law protection, a code of conduct is vital. > > > > Josh Wolf is to be admired for the courage of his > > convictions. He is selfless in his beliefs and has > > sacrificed far beyond what most of us (myslef > > included) would endure. What he is NOT, in my soon > to > > be flamed point of view, is a journalist. Not > because > > he is or was an anarchist. I'm a registered > democrat > > who is tasked with covering the White House as > part of > > my duties for NBC. Believe me, this administration > > doesn't make a distinction between democrats and > > anarchists. When I carry that camera for NBC, I > set > > all of that aside. > > > > In my mind, Josh failed the jouranalist test when > he > > said this to my former colleague Kevin Sites: > > > > Kevin Sites: If there had been a situation where > you > > saw a protestor beating up a police officer, or > you > > saw them committing arson, would you have shot > that? > > > > Josh Wolf: I wasn't there to shoot that. > > > > Kevin Sites: No, but would you have shot that? > > > > Josh Wolf: That's a question I would have made in > that > > moment... > > > > YOU GOTTA BE FREAKIN KIDDING ME! > > > > Josh if you're a journalist you're there to tell > the > > entire story the best you can."I wasn't there to > shoot > > that???" There have been plenty of my assignments > > that have evolved into something that I wasn't > there > > to shoot. Part of being a journalist is shedding > > pre-conceived notions as best you can. If that > means > > shooting things that rock your world-view, than so > be > > it. > > > > I was in Quebec City. I was in Genoa, Italy. I saw > > that kid lying dead in the street, killed by > Italian > > paramilitary. I also saw the kid next to me pull a > > Molotov cocktail out of his jacket and hurl it at > > Italian police. In Quebec City, masked figures > were > > hurling rotary saw blade down on police from > rooftops. > > I've been gassed by police there and in my > hometown > > of Washington, DC. Maybe it's because both the > police > > and the protesters have disdain for media, but I > shot > > everthing I felt was relevant. > > > > Josh Wolf is clearly an honorable, brave young > man, as > > brave as any journalist, but I don't believe he > > deserves shield law protection simply because: "I > > wasn't there to shoot that." > > > > Jim Long > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:jim.long%40vergenewmedia.com> > > http://vergenewmedia.com/ > <http://vergenewmedia.com/> > > > > --- Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:inthecity%40sbcglobal.net>> wrote: > > > > > As far as I knew, no one was talking about > imposing > > > anything on anyone. > > > I thought this was an attempt to identify a > common > > > creed that many > > > bloggers and videobloggers could adopt as they > share > > > in its mutual > > > values of respect, understanding, etc. It seems > to > > > me that there would > > > be absolutely no reason for their to be one code > > > either. > > > > > > Think of it like Creative Commons licensing; you > > > could find a code of > > > ethics if you choose that fit your own > ideological > > > viewpoint and elect > > > to brand your site with it. Or, perhaps you > can't > > > find an existing code > > > and choose to craft your own. Or, as you > personally > > > may feel could > > > decide not to adopt any formalized code at all. > > > Adding one new means for > > > people to synchronize their own personal ethics > as a > > > media maker, or > > > journalist, or whatever, may not be a bad idea. > It > > > is certainly a better > > > approach than the rather ominous suggestion put > > > forward by Deborah > > > Saunders stating: > > > > > > "The courts are going to end up deciding who > > > journalists are, because, > > > unfortunately, this administration is really > pushing > > > the envelope in > > > jailing journalists, and it won't end with the > Bush > > > administration. It > > > will get bigger as people point fingers in many > > > ways, and that means the > > > courts are going to decide who journalists are. > You > > > may not like it, but > > > that's the way it is." > > > > > > I don't think that's the way it has to be, but I > am > > > uncertain as to > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
