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 > > > > 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 mainstream press > > perspective, or a more biased perspective [because of] which you > > won't be as open about as a journalist who does not put forward an > > impression that they are trying to be objective. If you watch the > > videotape, you'll see there are many things that make the protestors > > look bad and there are things that make the cops look bad. It is > > essentially a balanced report of what I saw. It's a bird's eye view. > > > > 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." > > > > Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported > > Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages. > > > > "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." > > > > Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who > > decide the issue, but the government. > > > > "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." > > > > A couple of things struck me in this article, it reminded me of a > > conversation I had with Josh well over a year ago, not long after I > > had joined this group. I found him witty and passionite but I > > wondered about "objectivity" and he basicly said the same thing to me > > as he did here. > > > > It will be interesting to see what the future holds.... > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
