Re: [videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
While I do find the conversation about journalism interesting I find the most important point to be something entirely different. What rights do we have to be secure in our property... particularly our videos and other intellectual property. If the police can sopena Josh's video footage anytime they like like he was a survelience camera... then why not his computer... We could just go around and make a grand jury on domestic terrorism... and make anyone we think who we've suspected has talked to the ELF (environmental liberation front) or any group... and send them a sopoena for all their video, their computers, and any audio recordings... basically we can turn any individual in the U.S. into a tool of survielence for the CIA, FBI or any other government group and without due process. The governement was not looking for info specific to one crime, they wanted Josh's footage so they could identify people in it... basic survielence. Josh even offered to let them review the tapes in the presence of the court... but they obviously wanted his footage for purposes unrelated. Furthermore... on a state level Josh Wolf would have been protected by shield laws... the fact that this was a federal grand jury trumped his rights under the state. Basically it's a big issue of due process. I'm not even going to say wether Josh was right or wrong... but I both respect him and am tremendously grateful to him that he's driving the discussion and pressing the point. The bottom line is this... there has been plenty of understanding of due process when it comes to physical property. Our right to be secure in our physical property... say a diary... our mail. But as we move into intellectual property it gets stickier and stickier. Phone tapping was one thing... but now that our means of communication also become self archiving like email, video, photos, and audio... we have very important NEW considerations because now the governent can sopoena not just records of meta information like who you called... but increasingly records of what was said... in email, audio recordings, video footage, photos. The funny thing is more of this information is public on our blogs, video and photosharing sites, twiter... and all over. This alone gives the institutions of law enforcement and intelligence tremendous new powers and tools... I'm not so convinced... well... I'm downright opposed to the idea that they also need new liberties and are cutting through the red tape of due process to get at our personal data. In a world where the last two years of communications and even IM transcripts are in my gmail account... I'm VERY VERY concerned about how easy legislation is making it to dig into my personal information and for what reason. To me what josh wolf's case screams is we the citizens cannot be turned into survielence tools of the state. There has to be a much more well define and rigorous due process of how they can gain access to our private communications histories and for what reasons. If the police are given a warrant for your home it's given for a specific purpose... i.e. they can't be given a warrant to search for a gun and confiscate your entire computer... this is essentially what they did to josh wolf... they claimed they wanted his footage to look for information specifically related to a crime... he testified as to the content of that footage and he offered to let them review it in the presence of the court for said content. In refusing to comply they gave away their true and unspecified intentions. It's an extremely slippery slope. Peace, -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On 4/5/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting area of discussion. While Josh says that the idea of objectivity in journalism is the problem. He also states his supreme interest is in the truth. I haven't seen these highly abstract ideas thoroughly explained which leads people to different conclusions on what Josh and others mean. I don't see journalism fulfilling objectivity -- having a faulty claim to that idea. Objectivity requires peer review of source data. The information gathered from news organizations is held mostly in secrecy in the businesses which guarantees a significant lack of objectivity, since the data can't be independently evaluated. There is a problem of protecting sources -- but that can to a large extent be solved by disguising names. It's more the need of news businesses to scoop each other gain a edge by holding information secretive that's the problem. The problem is not objectivity in itself, but not adequately fulfilling it's requirements. The danger I fear is a false objectivity is attacked and thrown out, rather than corrected to offer transparent information that can corrected toward objectivity. -- Enric Cirne http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
A slippery slope is from the angle of whose looking. There is no absolute right that any social group has: government prosecutors, journalists, citizen, et. al. The decision is judged by the situation based on human rights and values. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I do find the conversation about journalism interesting I find the most important point to be something entirely different. What rights do we have to be secure in our property... particularly our videos and other intellectual property. If the police can sopena Josh's video footage anytime they like like he was a survelience camera... then why not his computer... We could just go around and make a grand jury on domestic terrorism... and make anyone we think who we've suspected has talked to the ELF (environmental liberation front) or any group... and send them a sopoena for all their video, their computers, and any audio recordings... basically we can turn any individual in the U.S. into a tool of survielence for the CIA, FBI or any other government group and without due process. The governement was not looking for info specific to one crime, they wanted Josh's footage so they could identify people in it... basic survielence. Josh even offered to let them review the tapes in the presence of the court... but they obviously wanted his footage for purposes unrelated. Furthermore... on a state level Josh Wolf would have been protected by shield laws... the fact that this was a federal grand jury trumped his rights under the state. Basically it's a big issue of due process. I'm not even going to say wether Josh was right or wrong... but I both respect him and am tremendously grateful to him that he's driving the discussion and pressing the point. The bottom line is this... there has been plenty of understanding of due process when it comes to physical property. Our right to be secure in our physical property... say a diary... our mail. But as we move into intellectual property it gets stickier and stickier. Phone tapping was one thing... but now that our means of communication also become self archiving like email, video, photos, and audio... we have very important NEW considerations because now the governent can sopoena not just records of meta information like who you called... but increasingly records of what was said... in email, audio recordings, video footage, photos. The funny thing is more of this information is public on our blogs, video and photosharing sites, twiter... and all over. This alone gives the institutions of law enforcement and intelligence tremendous new powers and tools... I'm not so convinced... well... I'm downright opposed to the idea that they also need new liberties and are cutting through the red tape of due process to get at our personal data. In a world where the last two years of communications and even IM transcripts are in my gmail account... I'm VERY VERY concerned about how easy legislation is making it to dig into my personal information and for what reason. To me what josh wolf's case screams is we the citizens cannot be turned into survielence tools of the state. There has to be a much more well define and rigorous due process of how they can gain access to our private communications histories and for what reasons. If the police are given a warrant for your home it's given for a specific purpose... i.e. they can't be given a warrant to search for a gun and confiscate your entire computer... this is essentially what they did to josh wolf... they claimed they wanted his footage to look for information specifically related to a crime... he testified as to the content of that footage and he offered to let them review it in the presence of the court for said content. In refusing to comply they gave away their true and unspecified intentions. It's an extremely slippery slope. Peace, -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On 4/5/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting area of discussion. While Josh says that the idea of objectivity in journalism is the problem. He also states his supreme interest is in the truth. I haven't seen these highly abstract ideas thoroughly explained which leads people to different conclusions on what Josh and others mean. I don't see journalism fulfilling objectivity -- having a faulty claim to that idea. Objectivity requires peer review of source data. The information gathered from news organizations is held mostly in secrecy in the businesses which guarantees a significant lack of objectivity, since the data can't be independently evaluated. There is a problem of protecting sources -- but that can to a large extent be solved by disguising names. It's more the need of news businesses to scoop each other gain a edge by holding information secretive that's the problem. The
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
Hi everyone: On 4/8/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, I don't think Josh has EVER referred to himself as an anarchist. Have you Josh? http://web.archive.org/web/2005123539/http://joshwolf.net/ I live in San Francisco. I'm an artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist; this is my videoblog. I most humbly stand corrected. :D Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
Hi everyone: On 4/9/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not even going to say wether Josh was right or wrong... but I both respect him and am tremendously grateful to him that he's driving the discussion and pressing the point. He pressed it enough to get the attention of PBS. The bottom line is this... there has been plenty of understanding of due process when it comes to physical property. Our right to be secure in our physical property... say a diary... our mail. Not to mention mainstream journalists and their sources when major stories that lead to controversy and scandals are broke. But as we move into intellectual property it gets stickier and stickier. Phone tapping was one thing... but now that our means of communication also become self archiving like email, video, photos, and audio... we have very important NEW considerations because now the governent can sopoena not just records of meta information like who you called... but increasingly records of what was said... in email, audio recordings, video footage, photos. Apparently the government has yet to acquaint itself with the Internet Archive. The funny thing is more of this information is public on our blogs, video and photosharing sites, twiter... and all over. This alone gives the institutions of law enforcement and intelligence tremendous new powers and tools... I'm not so convinced... well... I'm downright opposed to the idea that they also need new liberties and are cutting through the red tape of due process to get at our personal data. They don't neccessarily need new liberties. In many cases, they just simply flex the muscles of the OLD ones instead. It's an extremely slippery slope. It is indeed :( Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/8/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook patsvideoblog@ wrote: Besides, I don't think Josh has EVER referred to himself as an anarchist. Have you Josh? http://web.archive.org/web/2005123539/http://joshwolf.net/ I live in San Francisco. I'm an artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist; this is my videoblog. I most humbly stand corrected. :D It is somewhat hidden in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine ;) Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/4/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 qsXOs0NUE It is HOWEVER. (Quotes from the article are below) Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, The Revolution Will Be Televised, I just LOVE it when the mainstream media and press refer to what we do as anarchism when in fact what we're REALLY doing is simply excercising our rights to the press and free speech. If that's being an anarchist, well then it's NO WONDER why FOX News loves to crtiticize the rest of the media and press and cry Liberal bias. Then too, THEY ARE WORSE since they're CONSERVATIVELY biased. Besides, I don't think Josh has EVER referred to himself as an anarchist. Have you Josh? http://web.archive.org/web/2005123539/http://joshwolf.net/ I live in San Francisco. I'm an artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist; this is my videoblog. Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should be called a journalist. I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist, Saunders tells me from her office at the Chronicle. There are people who fit that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist. Really? And just what are local TV people when they cover a rally or protest for the evening news? Chopped liver? Talk about a clone of Ann Coulter! Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages. As well as it should. The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist, says John Diaz of the Chronicle. The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist. Exactly. Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who decide the issue, but the government. But it will be journalists and us as bloggers who will ask the tough questions OF the government though. 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, Saunders says. 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. On this point, even I agree with her. Just my opinion :D Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
Hello, On 4/8/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/4/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 qsXOs0NUE It is HOWEVER. (Quotes from the article are below) Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, The Revolution Will Be Televised, I just LOVE it when the mainstream media and press refer to what we do as anarchism when in fact what we're REALLY doing is simply excercising our rights to the press and free speech. If that's being an anarchist, well then it's NO WONDER why FOX News loves to crtiticize the rest of the media and press and cry Liberal bias. Then too, THEY ARE WORSE since they're CONSERVATIVELY biased. Besides, I don't think Josh has EVER referred to himself as an anarchist. Have you Josh? http://web.archive.org/web/2005123539/http://joshwolf.net/ I live in San Francisco. I'm an artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist; this is my videoblog. To all those who think the word anarchy is a bad word When this whole Josh Wolf thing started happening, I started wondering what anarchy actually meant. I'd always heard it used in a derogatory sense. I did some research, and I was surprised to find out what it actually meant. I found that anarchy is a synonym for a word which most people (in our cultures) claim to be a virtue. The difference between the two words seems to be similar to the words AND and BUT... i.e., logically they have the exact same definition... but the connotations people attach to them are different, and in some senses opposites. I'd encourage you to research it yourself too. (You'll probably be as surprise as I was.) See ya Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should be called a journalist. I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist, Saunders tells me from her office at the Chronicle. There are people who fit that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist. Really? And just what are local TV people when they cover a rally or protest for the evening news? Chopped liver? Talk about a clone of Ann Coulter! Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages. As well as it should. The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist, says John Diaz of the Chronicle. The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist. Exactly. Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who decide the issue, but the government. But it will be journalists and us as bloggers who will ask the tough questions OF the government though. 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, Saunders says. 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. On this point, even I agree with her. Just my opinion :D Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/ ___ Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... http://tirebiterz.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, On 4/8/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Cook patsvideoblog@ wrote: Hi everyone: On 4/4/07, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Interesting article http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 qsXOs0NUE It is HOWEVER. (Quotes from the article are below) Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, The Revolution Will Be Televised, I just LOVE it when the mainstream media and press refer to what we do as anarchism when in fact what we're REALLY doing is simply excercising our rights to the press and free speech. If that's being an anarchist, well then it's NO WONDER why FOX News loves to crtiticize the rest of the media and press and cry Liberal bias. Then too, THEY ARE WORSE since they're CONSERVATIVELY biased. Besides, I don't think Josh has EVER referred to himself as an anarchist. Have you Josh? http://web.archive.org/web/2005123539/http://joshwolf.net/ I live in San Francisco. I'm an artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist; this is my videoblog. To all those who think the word anarchy is a bad word When this whole Josh Wolf thing started happening, I started wondering what anarchy actually meant. I'd always heard it used in a derogatory sense. I did some research, and I was surprised to find out what it actually meant. I found that anarchy is a synonym for a word which most people (in our cultures) claim to be a virtue. The difference between the two words seems to be similar to the words AND and BUT... i.e., logically they have the exact same definition... but the connotations people attach to them are different, and in some senses opposites. I'd encourage you to research it yourself too. (You'll probably be as surprise as I was.) See ya Research and facts are good. Objectivity. -- Enric Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should be called a journalist. I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist, Saunders tells me from her office at the Chronicle. There are people who fit that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist. Really? And just what are local TV people when they cover a rally or protest for the evening news? Chopped liver? Talk about a clone of Ann Coulter! Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages. As well as it should. The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist, says John Diaz of the Chronicle. The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist. Exactly. Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who decide the issue, but the government. But it will be journalists and us as bloggers who will ask the tough questions OF the government though. 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, Saunders says. 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. On this point, even I agree with her. Just my opinion :D Cheers :D -- Pat Cook Denver, Colorado WEBSITES - AS MY WACKED OUT WORLD TURNS - http://pchamster.livejournal.com/ PAT'S REAL DEAL VIDEO BLOG - http://patsrealdeal.livejournal.com/ Pat's Health Medical Wonders VideoCast - http://patshealthmedicalwondersvideocast.blogspot.com/ MY LIVE CAM - http://patscam.camstreams.com/ YouTube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/amwowttv/ THE PAT COOK SHOW - http://www.livevideo.com/thepatcookshow -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ Make Television http://maketelevision.com/ ___ Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing...
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
Saunders sounds too bureaucratic; Sites unforgiving putting him on the spot. Josh Wolf doesn't have to make a choice right there and then. Josh Wolf is identified with anarchists , some with violent reputations, and the US Government is not going to have it. Perhaps he will continue his coverage of different anarchist groups in the future- the full variety of thought in that movement. I'm not here to write off the anarchists. As bloggers it's really easy to color the truth unintentionally. I think though if you're objective and neutral, you can get the research you need to make a case. Francisco franciscodaum.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 qsXOs0NUE SAN FRANCISCO -- Whether he is a journalist or not, as many debate, Josh Wolf believed strongly enough in the journalistic principle of protecting his sources that he was willing to spend seven and a half months in a federal prison being faithful to it. Tuesday afternoon, he walked out of the Dublin Federal Correctional Institution in California a free man. Wolf was in prison for refusing to hand over video he shot during a protest in San Francisco in 2005. In a deal brokered between his lawyers and federal prosecutors, Wolf posted the uncut video of the protest on his site, JoshWolf.net, gave prosecutors a copy, told them he had not witnessed any crimes and was released. In exchange, prosecutors acceded to Wolf's key contention: that he not be made to appear before the grand jury and identify those on his videotape. Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement,'' Wolf told reporters outside the gates of the prison. Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.'' Just as Wolf became a poster boy for the debate of whether bloggers are actually journalists and deserving the same legal protections, his status as an Internet icon may get another boost as likely the first federal prison inmate to be released for posting a video to his website. Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, The Revolution Will Be Televised, filmed a July 2005 San Francisco protest against the World Trade Organization which turned violent. A police officer suffered a fractured skull and there were allegations of attempted arson. Wolf provided some of the footage to local television stations, but refused to give the raw outtakes to a grand jury. The standoff led to Wolf being jailed and sparked a heated debate about whether an activist blogger deserved the same protections as a professional journalist. I spoke to Wolf by telephone while he was still in prison a few weeks ago and asked him if his advocacy made him selective in what he videotaped at the protest. Would he turn off the camera to protect his friends? A partial transcript of our conversation follows (Listen to the full interview). 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... Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an activist. My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability. � Josh Wolf Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also... Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist or a journalist? Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the realm of journalism. Kevin Sites: Right, but as an advocate, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be jailed and expect the consequences of your actions. As a journalist, you're asking for certain protections, you know, from those consequences. That's why I'm asking you, you know, which side do you want to step on at this point. Josh Wolf: My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability. Kevin Sites: But that truth is through, as you said, a prism of your own political convictions. Josh Wolf: The truth is biased by everyone's convictions, whether it's a corporate conviction of your employer, your own personal convictions that are left politically based from
[videoblogging] Re: Josh Wolf in the Hot Zone
This is an interesting area of discussion. While Josh says that the idea of objectivity in journalism is the problem. He also states his supreme interest is in the truth. I haven't seen these highly abstract ideas thoroughly explained which leads people to different conclusions on what Josh and others mean. I don't see journalism fulfilling objectivity -- having a faulty claim to that idea. Objectivity requires peer review of source data. The information gathered from news organizations is held mostly in secrecy in the businesses which guarantees a significant lack of objectivity, since the data can't be independently evaluated. There is a problem of protecting sources -- but that can to a large extent be solved by disguising names. It's more the need of news businesses to scoop each other gain a edge by holding information secretive that's the problem. The problem is not objectivity in itself, but not adequately fulfilling it's requirements. The danger I fear is a false objectivity is attacked and thrown out, rather than corrected to offer transparent information that can corrected toward objectivity. -- Enric Cirne http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting article http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294;_ylt=AjL7tlWL.cedgomrWP1 qsXOs0NUE SAN FRANCISCO -- Whether he is a journalist or not, as many debate, Josh Wolf believed strongly enough in the journalistic principle of protecting his sources that he was willing to spend seven and a half months in a federal prison being faithful to it. Tuesday afternoon, he walked out of the Dublin Federal Correctional Institution in California a free man. Wolf was in prison for refusing to hand over video he shot during a protest in San Francisco in 2005. In a deal brokered between his lawyers and federal prosecutors, Wolf posted the uncut video of the protest on his site, JoshWolf.net, gave prosecutors a copy, told them he had not witnessed any crimes and was released. In exchange, prosecutors acceded to Wolf's key contention: that he not be made to appear before the grand jury and identify those on his videotape. Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement,'' Wolf told reporters outside the gates of the prison. Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.'' Just as Wolf became a poster boy for the debate of whether bloggers are actually journalists and deserving the same legal protections, his status as an Internet icon may get another boost as likely the first federal prison inmate to be released for posting a video to his website. Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, The Revolution Will Be Televised, filmed a July 2005 San Francisco protest against the World Trade Organization which turned violent. A police officer suffered a fractured skull and there were allegations of attempted arson. Wolf provided some of the footage to local television stations, but refused to give the raw outtakes to a grand jury. The standoff led to Wolf being jailed and sparked a heated debate about whether an activist blogger deserved the same protections as a professional journalist. I spoke to Wolf by telephone while he was still in prison a few weeks ago and asked him if his advocacy made him selective in what he videotaped at the protest. Would he turn off the camera to protect his friends? A partial transcript of our conversation follows (Listen to the full interview). 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... Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an activist. My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability. Josh Wolf Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also... Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist or a journalist? Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the realm of journalism. Kevin Sites: Right, but as an advocate, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be jailed and expect the consequences of your actions. As a journalist, you're asking for
