Journalist persecution/heroism (lol, thread is re: journalist self-importance)

[sys]

good headline.

https://twitter.com/markberman/status/1268368940620791809

[MakeItRain]

No one thinks the media should not be subjected to more freedoms that any other citizen. Did that really need to be said? When you are hearing these men and women say "I'm media" it's much easier to say that than "Hey, I'm here for my job, someone else is requiring me to be here. I need my job. I like eating and paying my bills. Please don't shoot, gas, beat, or arrest me, I'm working, just like you are."

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/MelissainJax/status/1268307717241753600

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/MelissainJax/status/1268307717241753600

The world's five deadliest countries for journalists include three — India, Mexico and, for the first time, the United States — where journalists were killed in cold blood, even though those countries weren't at war or in conflict, the group said.

"The hatred of journalists that is voiced ... by unscrupulous politicians, religious leaders and businessmen has tragic consequences on the ground, and has been reflected in this disturbing increase in violations against journalists," Secretary-General Christophe Deloire said in a statement.

[DQ12]

https://twitter.com/MelissainJax/status/1268307717241753600

That article is a year and a half old. 

From the referenced report in the article:

The United States joined the ranks of the world’s deadliest countries for the media this
year, with a total of six journalists killed. Four journalists were among the five employees
of the Capital Gazette, a local newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, who were killed on
28 June when a man walked in and opened fire with a shotgun. He had been harassing
the newspaper for six years on Twitter about a 2011 article that named him. It was the
deadliest attack on a media outlet in the US in modern history. Two other journalists, a
local TV anchor and cameraman, were killed by a falling tree while covering Subtropical
Storm Alberto’s extreme weather in North Carolina in May.

https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf

smh

[Trim]

[DQ12]

The time has come for America to stop falling trees from 2018's subtropical storm Alberto.

[chum1]

Apparently, everyone gets their turn.

https://twitter.com/jangelooff/status/1268703137424121857

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/MelissainJax/status/1268307717241753600

That article is a year and a half old. 

From the referenced report in the article:

The United States joined the ranks of the world’s deadliest countries for the media this
year, with a total of six journalists killed. Four journalists were among the five employees
of the Capital Gazette, a local newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, who were killed on
28 June when a man walked in and opened fire with a shotgun. He had been harassing
the newspaper for six years on Twitter about a 2011 article that named him. It was the
deadliest attack on a media outlet in the US in modern history. Two other journalists, a
local TV anchor and cameraman, were killed by a falling tree while covering Subtropical
Storm Alberto’s extreme weather in North Carolina in May.

https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf

smh

I know how old the article was, I just found it interesting for the thread, it's not like there's been a new found adoration for the media since 2018. The dudes falling out of the tree is tragic and hilarious.

[MakeItRain]

Apparently, everyone gets their turn.

https://twitter.com/jangelooff/status/1268703137424121857

NYPD, weird, they're never unhinged.

[Trim]

https://twitter.com/PacNWGuild/status/1286818103557382145

Here's the actual subpoena.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7006585-Subpoena-Duces-Tecum-Seattle-Times-Company-Et-Al.html

[MakeItRain]

I'm not going to read a 21 page subpoena, so you're going to have to tell me what's funny about that press release. This seems to be a very clear first amendment infringement.

[catastrophe]

Looks like the subpoena is for relevant photos and videos in their possession. Not sure how that implicates the first amendment.

[Trim]

The request is for footage that exists over the course of 90 minutes within 2 square blocks that could solve the remaining mysteries of an arson and stolen firearms, and the Judge (with knowledge of the first amendment) granted it.

So now press releases like that and other virtual journalism lawn orgies are happening.

[catastrophe]

Not that I think the subpoena undermines the press release. I just think the position is kind of ridiculous that just because you’re a journalist you shouldn’t have to provide helpful documents that anyone else would be required to provide.

This isn’t an instance of going after confidential sources of information. MAYBE the photos and videos show identities of informants but that’s not what the press release says.

They should just publicly post the raw footage. Seems much more in line with their mission as journalists.

[MakeItRain]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

[Trim]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

[catastrophe]

Yeah, their point is that people might attack journalists if they knew the journalists would have to give over their footage in a criminal investigation? And that is why the First Amendment is at risk?

[MakeItRain]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

[Trim]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

Maybe four!  Not sure about Frank.

Madeline Lamo, a media litigation fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Frank LoMonte, the director for the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida

Eric Stahl, the attorney representing the five news outlets

NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher

And it's quite an argument they've presented to constituent media types.  But in the real world and particularly in court, it's lol ridiculous, the court part being especially relevant to attorneys.

[MakeItRain]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

Maybe four!  Not sure about Frank.

Madeline Lamo, a media litigation fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Frank LoMonte, the director for the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida

Eric Stahl, the attorney representing the five news outlets

NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher

And it's quite an argument they've presented to constituent media types.  But in the real world and particularly in court, it's lol ridiculous, the court part being especially relevant to attorneys.

So how do you propose this goes down?

Cops: Hey Seattle media, we want to solve some crimes and our investigation has hit a snag, give us your video and photos.
Times, KIRO, KING, KOMO: uh, isn't there a shield law that protects us from giving that to you?
Cops: We're the cops, rough ridin' give it to us.
Media: uh wait. Lawyers, do we have to do this
Media Attorneys: sure why not, give it to them, give them whatever they need, it should be fine, the cops won't overreach at all.

[Spracne]

This isn't some sort of novel concept. It's a subpoena, like any other.

[Justwin]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

Maybe four!  Not sure about Frank.

Madeline Lamo, a media litigation fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Frank LoMonte, the director for the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida

Eric Stahl, the attorney representing the five news outlets

NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher

And it's quite an argument they've presented to constituent media types.  But in the real world and particularly in court, it's lol ridiculous, the court part being especially relevant to attorneys.

So how do you propose this goes down?

Cops: Hey Seattle media, we want to solve some crimes and our investigation has hit a snag, give us your video and photos.
Times, KIRO, KING, KOMO: uh, isn't there a shield law that protects us from giving that to you?
Cops: We're the cops, rough ridin' give it to us.
Media: uh wait. Lawyers, do we have to do this
Media Attorneys: sure why not, give it to them, give them whatever they need, it should be fine, the cops won't overreach at all.

You sure seem to think the First Amendment is important.

[MakeItRain]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

Maybe four!  Not sure about Frank.

Madeline Lamo, a media litigation fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Frank LoMonte, the director for the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida

Eric Stahl, the attorney representing the five news outlets

NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher

And it's quite an argument they've presented to constituent media types.  But in the real world and particularly in court, it's lol ridiculous, the court part being especially relevant to attorneys.

So how do you propose this goes down?

Cops: Hey Seattle media, we want to solve some crimes and our investigation has hit a snag, give us your video and photos.
Times, KIRO, KING, KOMO: uh, isn't there a shield law that protects us from giving that to you?
Cops: We're the cops, rough ridin' give it to us.
Media: uh wait. Lawyers, do we have to do this
Media Attorneys: sure why not, give it to them, give them whatever they need, it should be fine, the cops won't overreach at all.

You sure seem to think the First Amendment is important.

lol, when did I indicate that it wasn't? Don't be dense, literally every single person in this county values the first amendment. You think I don't because I interpret it differently than you do? That's MAGA as eff. It's a nebulous 45 word passage created 230 years ago when it was legal to own slaves, there are thousands if not millions of ways to interpret it.

I don't think it should be used as a shield for people who intend on terrorizing people, how very unamerican of me.

[Trim]

So we're to the point where owning the bloggers is more important than the media's need to cover stories without the cops scouring their footage and notes to find "criminals." There's no Pandora's Box potential here at all. Trim, you used to be a prosecutor, right?

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/seattle-times-judge-subpoena-protest-police/

All of the quotes that journalism school student put together in your link and that it was presented that way at all in the link, are more examples of the things I'm lol'n at.

Those quotes are from three different attorneys and none from journalists. Maybe move this to the prosecutors who will let the cops do whatever they want despite the pleas from constitutionalists thread?

Maybe four!  Not sure about Frank.

Madeline Lamo, a media litigation fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Frank LoMonte, the director for the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida

Eric Stahl, the attorney representing the five news outlets

NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher

And it's quite an argument they've presented to constituent media types.  But in the real world and particularly in court, it's lol ridiculous, the court part being especially relevant to attorneys.

So how do you propose this goes down?

Cops: Hey Seattle media, we want to solve some crimes and our investigation has hit a snag, give us your video and photos.
Times, KIRO, KING, KOMO: uh, isn't there a shield law that protects us from giving that to you?
Cops: We're the cops, rough ridin' give it to us.
Media: uh wait. Lawyers, do we have to do this
Media Attorneys: sure why not, give it to them, give them whatever they need, it should be fine, the cops won't overreach at all.

Not quite.

Cops: Well, eff. The piece we need might be in the hands of Times, KIRO, KING, KOMO.  We're gonna need to request a subpoena from the court.
Court: [reviews subpoena].  Yep, this is narrow enough and meets all the criteria, granted.
Media: [upon getting subpoena and deciding to extrapolate it to some ingrained principle] We don't want to obey this, let's talk to lawyers.
Media attorneys: [reviewing and knowing it's a loser but whatever, this isn't a contingency case] Yeah, we'll take your case and argue to court and also argue in the press
Media and media attorneys: [upon losing] let's keep making a thing of this, which is easy as we are the entity that informs people