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 > > whether such volunteer codes will help or hinders > > the governments > > efforts to register and license bloggers and other > > journalists. > > > > Josh > > > > Enric wrote: > > > > > > Human values of respect, understanding, etc. are > > natural to express > > > and act on. To impose a code of conduct is an > > insult and mockery of > > > those values. > > > > > > -- Enric > > > -======- > > > http://cirne.com <http://cirne.com> <http://cirne.com > <http://cirne.com>> > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, Josh > > Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey everyone, this is my first post after being > > released! It feels good > > > > to return to the land of message groups... > > > > > > > > I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I > > haven't examined its > > > > current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite > > displeased with this code. > > > > For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on > > comments and not > > > original > > > > content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I > > can't sign onto this code > > > > *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about > > creating a set of > > > > principles that the blogger adheres to, or is > > this about creating a set > > > > of principles for the commenter in order to > > establish a "safe" place > > > for > > > > them to engage in an open dialogue. > > > > > > > > From my vantage point this code seems less about > > the blogger and more > > > > about the commenters and I feel that merging the > > two of these together > > > > in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound. > > > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The thing is that most of the draconian > > elements to their proposals, > > > > > is already technically covered by law in many > > parts of the world. Its > > > > > just a question of there being any resources > > to follow up every > > > > > potential violation. Imagine how many libelous > > comments have been made > > > > > on the net, compared to how many every go > > anywhere near a court. > > > > > > > > > > As for the rest of it, I presume that most > > states rely on society, > > > > > peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some > > control over how civil > > > > > people are to eachother. Its not going to be > > regulated against very > > > > > often. Where the law does apply it often drags > > way behind the society > > > > > the law serves, eg the stand up comedians & > > rock stars who had to > > > > > endure lewd conduct type charges in decades > > past. But a culture thats > > > > > learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers > > who cant get enough of it, > > > > > and cant get enough of the internet, along > > with similar stuff from > > > > > many adults out there, makes it hard to see > > how the sheer volume of > > > > > this stuff could be policed by the state or > > volunteers on the net. > > > > > > > > > > All I know is that this code isnt going to > > intimidate any > > > > > intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool > > that gets people to > > > > > shutup far more effectively than this code > > will, and that is a tragedy > > > > > but a human reality. There are many ironies in > > this field, such as the > > > > > potential intimidation w would face if lots of > > people in the > > > > > blogosphere attempted to deeply explore > > intimidation and coercion and > > > > > how humans use them, and how the internet is > > merely a new light shon > > > > > onto this sick underbelly of human > > 'civilisation', rather than a new > > > > > and shocking thing. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Charles Iliya Krempeaux" > > > > > <supercanadian@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a really bad feeling about all this. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know people have good intentions with all > > this. But alot of things > > > > > > start out that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this "code" stay voluntary. (And > > people aren't forced to > > > > > obey it.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See ya > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup <joly@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html> > > > > > > > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html>> > > > > > > > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html> > > > > > > > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 04.08.07 > > > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > > > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code > > of Conduct last week, I > > > > > suggested some > > > > > > > ideas of what such a code might contain, > > but didn't actually put > > > > > forth a draft that > > > > > > > people could subscribe to. We're not quite > > there yet, but we have > > > === message truncated === > > __________________________________________________________ > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > <http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367> > >
