<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i would say that no source is 'objective'. all you can do is try to
be as
> objective as you can while acknowledging the biases you know you
have and
> being open to criticism for biases you don't.
That's what I would say is being "objective". The way objectivity has
been used and defined in journalism is missleading and unusable.
Objectivity is a standard to reach for, and rarely an absolute that
can be applied 100%.
>
> i find that the best thing for 'news' reporting is to have as many
different
> points of view from as many sources as possible - including traditional
> media (from a variety of coroporate/government sources) and 'citizen
> journalism'. then, you have to put these various points of view
together and
> arrive at your own conclusions.
Correct, personal reason and judgment is essentail to the process.
>
> of course, this can be a confusing and time intensive way to go
about it and
> most people won't do that. most people will go to the sources they trust
> (which usually means people who's world view are in sync with there's).
Or who demonstrate a high level of objectivity.
>
> i think that there was never a time when media creators were not
biased. we
> just know it now. i think what we are nostalgic for is, not so much
a lost
> objectivity as a lost innocence.
I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :)
-- Enric
-======-
http://www.cirne.com
>
> On 4/23/06, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of
> > > this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in
> > > what "citizen" journalism can become and to be honest I don't like
> > > what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would
> > > consider him a journalist.......
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> 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...........
> >
> > I would say "you can be objective." Science has shown the value of
> > objective observation and analysis. Because objectivity has mostly
> > been incompletely and incorrectly applied in journalistic
> > organizations, does not make a better outcome from abandoning it.
> >
> > -- Enric
> > -======-
> > http://www.cirne.com
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Anne Walk
> http://loadedpun.com
>
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Use |
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.
