Specifically, this:
When I wrote about law enforcement apparently targeting journalists, in reports a Federal judge found so credible he grated a temporary restraining order, I received a few comments. They were...heated. Vitriolic. The people who wrote them are free to hold such ideas, of course. I'm not obliged to post them on my blog, but I will quote from them in order to address the significant concerns they raise.Followed later in the post by this:
As for "lefty so-called journalists," there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits press freedom to one political leaning or another: John Stossel, Glenn Greenwald, Sean Hannity, Rachael Maddow and some nitwit with a blog are all protected from government interference, even when they're offering up nothing but opinion. " It is generally understood that the government is expected to not shoot them, especially when they have taken pains to make themselves identifiable as "press.My thanks to Roberta X for including me in her list of protected examples. :)
All of which to frame my question; what is the practical distinction between "press" and "activist", and does the one necessarily preclude being the other? If so, by what degree, and by what discernible measure available to the average onlooker?
As justification for my questions, I submit the documented actions of Canadian journalist/activist Lauren Southern. A paid (and therefore professional) journalist for online media companies, Southern nonetheless actively participated in the activities she was reporting on as a clearly identified member of the "press", an activity she continued to various degree in her subsequent professional iteration as a documentarian.
As Ms. Southern's past actions make clear, there is a very real distinction that needs to be made between those who "report" from within the ranks of those committing a "political action", and those who clearly, physically delineate the separation between themselves and those they are reporting on, regardless of whether, or by what means, they mark themselves and/or their apparel.
Unless and to the degree the effort is undertaken to make that distinction between press (those observing and commentating on others visible, or at least demonstrably known to them, but of which they are discernibly not a part) and activists (those who participate in the activities which they may or may not be also reporting on - regardless of any 1st Amendment-begging disguise they may affect while doing so), there can never be any practical means for police (who are by design the action arm(s) of government's enforcement efforts) to make any reliable distinction between them. Are we as a society to accept that any random seditionist or scofflaw is to be permitted carte blanche because of a questionable mastery of a Sharpie pen? Taking the opposite tack, where in the 1st Amendment is delineated the means and mechanisms by which "press" must be identified to qualify for the stipulated freedoms therein?
As should be clear by now, the concept of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" are not at all simple in their instantiation, nor are they amenable to simplistic applications of theory or principle by any of the involved parties. Those who choose to take active part in reporting on events of the day, especially those who do so in the moment, necessarily must also assume an elevated degree of personal responsibility for what befalls them as a result of their immediate presence to events. Similarly, we citizens should make a regular practice of joggling the elbows of our state and national legislators to craft legislation that assists government (and citizens more generally) making spontaneous distinction between bystander observers, and those involved more directly, a greater degree of likelihood.
It truly is essential that a self-governing people have ready access to knowledge of events effecting the function of their society. Reliably being able to discern who said what to whom, and within which topic or activity that all took place, really has to be the minimum necessary knowledge base that any society needs to develop the means for its citizens to obtain in a clearly discernibly biased fashion. Unless and until we do that, we are going to continue to suffer examples of police applying the tactic(s) of the day (more commonly night) to all and sundry they come in contact with "in the heat of the moment", and the content of the news of the day to be opaque and misleading at best. I think we can all agree that the status quo is far less than desirable, but the currently available alternatives seem at best less than satisfactory either.
4 comments:
Do you not, then, distinguish between an "activist" and a "rioter?" The critical distinction is between lawful and unlawful activity -- and I made clear in my blog post that a journalist operating in the midst of the mob can reasonably expect to run the same risks as those around them -- but no more than the same.
Where does an "embedded journalist" stand in your conception? What about "immersive" or "gonzo" journalism, in the style of Hunter S. Thompson?
While it is the custom and policy of most mainstream news operations that the reporter must not be part of the story, there is a long-standing tradition of press involvement; one of the better examples would be the Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) Papers.
The Peelian principles of policing tell us that "the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Our own history makes it clear that the Press is the public and the public is the Press, the Press after all being simply members of the public who give (and draw!) attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
The cops are us. The reporters are us. The protesters are us. The people who choose initiate force are, alas, us. It really is that simple.
Thank you for commenting in reply.
I wish to make clear that I don't disagree with any of your summation, and the history you recite seems uncontroversial to me (beware of shallow waters there). That said, I do think we need to devise a mechanism whereby people (whether involved themselves or merely watching through a screen) can distinguish between those observing something and those actively taking part in the same thing, both sets of people effectively dressed alike.
My issue isn't that so many practice some version of "reporting", but that we have no in the moment means of determining whether or not they are also active threat vectors to those whose task it is to minimize the physical destruction and threat of violence to others so often a part of "political action". I would also point out that possession of a human right is distinct from exercise of that right. Because we all equally possess the right to express our opinion, for example, doesn't relieve any of us from the consequences of doing so.
On the question of police "attacking" people functioning as press, I submit that absent the police going out of their way to do so (diverting the impetus of their actions away from the massed crowd onto a separate group of journalists, as example), should members of the press place themselves in a position to become targets of police actions to disperse the crowd they are solely responsible for that circumstance and for what predictably will follow. Once again, having a (hopefully small) body of legislation that formalizes the distinctions between citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights to free speech as press from those practicing some variant of insurrection would be an improvement on the present situation.
Having a legislated boundary of the limits to exercise of rights would be a useful application of legislative efforts as well, I suggest. Watching allegedly grown men and women having screaming squabbles on CSPAN over the fine distinctions between possession and exercise of rights would offer fine Sunday morning talking head fodder at the very least.
The simplest principle becomes complex indeed when all of us are involved in the doing.
You may have read what I have written here and on my own blog, but your comment tells me you didn't pay much attention to what I had to say.
And with that I will gather up my tat and ponder further on the matter.
Thank you again for contributing to the discussion.
Post a Comment