[Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest

[Jeffrey Embry]

Kurt,


Thank you for the insight on this.  I have absolutely no issues with
press photographers being able to shoot video or take pictures from
anywhere that is public domain.  In fact I do encourage it.

I do have issues with once the video gets back to the studio or paper
and is editted to the point that the real story has been taken out of
context or sensationalized for the sake of improving ratings or to try
and slant the story to the way a reporter or station wants it to be
slanted.  But that is jsut my .02 cents and I do have the option of
either watching it or not, and typically I will either turn it off or
change to another station.  In fact this is one reason why I find
watching International news on MHZ so refreshing...it is just reported
without injecting a reporters opinion or slant.

I guess the bottom line that I want to say is that with these freedoms
come some sort of responsibility and perhaps if stations exercised
this responsibility, the trust between law enforcement and media may
be better.

Again...one man's opinion.

73es,

Jeff
K3OQ



On 1/26/12, Brooks, Kurt <knbrooks at wusa9.com> wrote:
> I did not mention this yesterday, but last night I spent four hours with MPD
> at their training academy on this very issue. The invitation was a result of
> the altercation I had with MPD at 11th & M Streets NW last month.
>
> The training session had a goal of promoting understanding between the media
> (most specifically photographers) and the police. The session involved a
> half hour presentation by Gwendelyn Crump, PIO; an hour and a half with
> Mickey Osterreicher, General Counsel for the National Press Photographers
> Association; and then speaches by various still and video photogs, myself
> included.
>
> Personally I gained the most from Mickey's presentation, where he made it
> clear that courts are ruling in favor of the First Amendment, and attemps
> such as Maryland's to apply wiretap law to video made in public places are
> laughable. The courts are also making no distinction between media and
> civilians with cameras. In short if you are in a public area you may
> videotape, no exceptions.
>
> Sadly (and to no surprise), another thing I gained from this interaction was
> the reality that the police do maintain a group mentality, tend the view the
> media as a whole as 'out of control', and they believe it is at times their
> duty to protect citizens from the prying cameras of the media. Also I was a
> bit dismayed when I came to recognize that officers were all to ready to
> admit their human nature when dealing with others, but seemed forgetful that
> they posess and utilize police powers and authority, something the rest of
> us do not have. I think I left the meeting more disappointed by this notion
> than anything else.
>
> If the idea was to help teach officers how to deal with the media I am not
> sure that was accomplished, but I can say I learned a lot about the state
> and clarity of rights in this country, and found them in better shape than I
> had hoped.
>
> Kurt Brooks
>
> ________________________________________
> From: scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Dewey [dewey3 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:23 PM
> To: Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest
>
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
>
> Now, with that disclaimer out of the way, there are two things to consider
> concerning wiretapping.   1) Jurisdiction , and 2) consent.  MD, unlike DC
> and VA is a 2-party state.  All parties privileged to the conversation must
> be made aware that they are being recorded (there are a very small number of
> criminal investigations where this is not the case).  DC and VA are 1-party
> states.  Just one person in the conversation, no matter how many, needs to
> know that the conversation is being recorded.  This is what got Linda Tripp
> in trouble in the beginning.  Had her recorded conversation with Monica
> taken place in DC or VA, there would not have been an argument concerning
> the recording.  Then number two, was consent given.  I'm with Kurt on this
> issue.  Since the entire event occurred in open public, my argument would be
> more geared at where is the expectation of privacy in public?  Does that
> mean two people in public and whispering in quiet do not have an expectation
> of privacy..
>  . no... they do to an extent.  But this is why they are whispering.  If
> this event is to be approached from a "wiretapping" perspective, it would
> have been better for the officer to express that.
>
> Again, just my opinion.
> Dewey
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>


-- 
Jeff Embry, K3OQ
FM19je
ARCI #11643, FPQRP #-696,
QRP-L # 67, NAQCC #25, ARS #1733
AMSAT LM-2263

--
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss
of enthusiasm.  - Sir Winston Churchill