Pick the journalist

Posted at 2:33 PM on September 3, 2008 by Bob Collins (16 Comments)
Filed under: Media, The political conventions

In the picture, pick out the journalists. You can click on the image to make it larger.

Even in the relative calm when this picture was shot, it's difficult to determine who is a journalist, who is a protester with a camera and who is actually a protester but is saying he/she is a journalist.

Add a little action into the mix, and smaller credentials aren't much help.

A news release from the people in charge of the police today appears to suggest that the police aren't going to waste much time this week trying to determine who's a real journalist, and who are the posers.

Law enforcement responsible for security and public safety in the Twin Cities area would like to remind members of the media of the proper procedures for staying safe during unlawful assemblies. When police officials request the breakup of an unlawful assembly by announcement to the gathered crowd, that order applies to all individuals, including the media. A quick and orderly dispersal is more likely to help people, including media personnel, stay safe and avoid arrest.

Because still cameras, video cameras and other recording equipment are commonplace at large events or gatherings, it can be difficult for law enforcement and others to differentiate between credentialed media, un-credentialed media or others who may carry similar equipment. While law enforcement in no way wishes to restrict First Amendment rights, members of the press must also follow police orders to protect their safety, the safety of police and others.

(Photo via Getty)

---

Comments (16)

My husband and I were caught in the protest last night. We were in St. Paul to have some dinner and then see the Provention concert at the Fitzgerald theater.

We were walking along the sidewalk, watching the peaceful demonstration, when all of a sudden we were feet away from the riot police in full gear. They had the entire crowd penned in - we could not disburse even if we wanted to, and let me tell you, we wanted to! We kept asking to get out of the area, but no one would let us go by. One person helped us find the way out, and that was a member of the press - he was wearing a badge that in the relative calm was quite easy to see "PRESS", but wouldn't have been noticeable after things flared up. The marchers, from my vantage point, were peaceful. It was AFTER the riot police penned us in and started macing people that things started to get out of control.

The entire experience made me angry. Angry that, by the appearances of last night's events, freedom of assembly is a sham, freedom of speech is a sham. Seeing riot police and scooper trucks in the streets of St. Paul, stomping just outside the doors of the Fitz is a frightening memory that will be etched in my mind forever.

I'll be very happy when this convention is over.

Posted by Michelle | September 3, 2008 3:02 PM

---

Question. Are the officers trained to spot proper press credentials? One would think once an officer is up close and personal enough to arrest someone, he or she would be able to tell if that person has the proper press credentials or not. Or are they just acting as "dog catchers?"

Posted by Deb in St. Paul | September 3, 2008 3:59 PM

---

Deb: The credentials are on lanyards which swing about and flip over.

They also don't necessarily identify you as PRESS.

I suppose it doesnt' help that some protesters have been ripping the credentials off some reporters.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 3, 2008 4:35 PM

---

If a journalist has press credentials allowing them access to the floor of the convention, as the crew from "Democracy Now" did, they are journalist and should be allowed to do their job.
Amy Goodman is claiming that when she showed her credentials to officials at the jail, an agent from the secret service ripped the credentials from her neck and said "now you don't have any credentials."(www.democracynow.org)
A vibrant democracy requires a free press, thanks to MPR for covering the convention and provoking discussion on protest and policing.

Posted by Jim | September 3, 2008 4:40 PM

---

The biggest misunderstanding about a journalist's credentials is that they allow you to do whatever you want to do, regardless of the instructions of the police. They don't.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 3, 2008 5:44 PM

---

I believe the police are present to prevent violence and property damage. I am not sure what threat a journalist documenting events poses, other than possibly exposing unprofessional behavior.

If a journalist is caught up in mass arrest while doing their job, I see no reason to continue to hold them. If Journalists' are too scared to go near scenes of violence, who will bear witness? Whether at a riot or outside a fund-raising dinner, journalist should have the opportunity to take note.

Posted by Jim | September 3, 2008 6:08 PM

---

It's remarkably hard to identify journalists when the police remove their credentials from them, forceably then stand on their heads and tear gas and mace them. In MPR's opinion, it would appear that targetting journalists is just fine since they're "so hard to identify." I'm guessing it's also just fine for the police to hide their badges and refuse to identify themselves as they have been doing for the past few days. And it must follow that it's just peachy to hold them indefinitely without charges or on clearly ludicrous charges. I realize that expecting investigative journalism from the big networks is pointless but I thought MPR would attempt to do better, seeing as this is all going on outside your doors.

Posted by Catherine | September 3, 2008 6:27 PM

---

//In MPR's opinion, it would appear that targetting journalists is just fine since they're "so hard to identify." I

It may appear that way but only if that's the way you want it to appear in order to make your point.

Far more constructive and productive would be to concentrate on the literal translation of what I have written, and I would suggest you do so in the interest of accuracy.

If you're truly interested in the importance of journalism and journalists -- and I presume you are -- let's start with that and go from there.

I realize you're dissatisfied with MPR because it is not reading the script you want them to read. However, this is what we can definitely say so far: Somebody is lying. Whether it's the police or the protesters is not yet clear and good journalism practices requires that to be proven, not assumed. We're working on that but there are plenty of other Web sites around that you can be visiting if all you want to read is the version that you want adopted as gospel.

Now, before you hit reply, read this. Because this journalist -- a real journalist, not a "Kinko's journalist" -- gets it exactly right.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 3, 2008 6:27 PM

---

If I were a bonafide journalist, it would piss me off beyond a bushel of kidney stones that protestors would pose as one of us.

Not only is that bankrupt of any intellectual integrity, but it also makes my job that much harder. And unsafe. Make your point punks, don't discredit my profession, or endanger my safety.

I avoided some of the previous posts about the protestors, not because lack of interest, but because my views are (or were) probably pretty garden variety. And probably still are, in many regards. But that specter of impersonating a journalist has made me angrier that I've been in quite some time.

Yeah, it probably is nowhere near the first time this kind of thing has happened. But that only forestalled outrage. Hell, I'm not even a journalist.

Posted by JohnnyZoom | September 3, 2008 9:48 PM

---

I doubt it is that difficult to verify press the press credentials of an AP photographer and the three members of "Democracy Now"

I am concerned that if we do not defend the rights of journalist to do their jobs, authorities will feel free to target them when they do not want their actions to be recorded.

Here is a link to a interview with the AP journalist who was arrested, along with his last picture.

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/09/03/3320/ap_photographers_last_pre-arrest_shot_is_a_stunner

Posted by jim | September 3, 2008 10:03 PM

---

The link won't translate to html. But I posted it in an earlier post today.

But click the link above in an earlier comment. Also good reading.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 3, 2008 10:32 PM

---

Bob, apparently the AP reporter didn't receive any instructions, according to the story from the Minnpost.com However, since whoever knocked him down apparently couldn't see his credentials, I suppose next time he'll know to slap a big PRESS sticker on the back of his vest.

Posted by Deb in St. Paul | September 4, 2008 6:06 PM

---

Bob,

greetings from Kinkos (in NYC)! My press cards (NWU and International Federation of Journalists) have phone numbers to make it easier for police to verify my identity. I'm confident Amy et al. have similar credentials. I don't think the police did any triage, however. In fact Chief Harrington seems to acknowledge that triage happened ex post facto in an audio segment available on MPR.

Here is a letter from the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) to Coleman, Gaertner and Choi:

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman
Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner
St. Paul City Attorney John Choi

The Twin Cities Chapter of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) condemns the targeting of journalists by police during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, including every case of harassment, arrest, and assault that occurred in the days leading up to and lasting through the convention.

The behavior of police during the convention is now well known. The blatant hostility police directed to journalists was first evident on Saturday, August 30, in a raid led by the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department on the home of U.S. Army Veteran and respected community member Mike Whalen, at which time radio and TV journalist Elizabeth Press of Democracy Now!, along with members of the I-Witness Video Collective, whose work documenting demonstrations against the 2004 Republican National Convention resulted in dismissed charges and acquittals for hundreds of protesters, were detained. It became even more evident when Democracy Now! producers Nicole Salazar and Sharif Abdel Kouddous, clearly displaying press credentials identifying their professional association, were violently arrested and assaulted in the midst of filming a confrontation between the police and anti-war demonstrators on Monday, September 1, followed by the arrest of Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman when she questioned why her crew members were taken into custody. Also arrested at that time was Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke. We are aware of a total of 30 journalists from a variety of news outlets being arrested during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

State interference with journalism is the definitive mark of totalitarian repression. It is imperative in the maintenance of a free society that the freedom of the press be protected. That protection must extend not just to employees of major media outlets, but also to freelance journalists who sell their work to news outlets on a private contractual basis or distribute it through other means. We call on Ramsey County Attorney, Susan Gaertner, and St. Paul City Attorney, John Choi, to immediately drop charges against all journalists arrested while covering the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Posted by Thomas Good | September 10, 2008 3:08 PM

---

In my mind, the issue is still unresolved. If, after a marches' permit expires, the police tell a crowd to disperse all the remaining journalist are technically breaking the law. Journalist would not be able to break into a house to follow a story. Can they, legally, disobey a police order to disperse?

I know what I feel is right, but have always assumed that journalist have some special constitutional privileges granted under the "freedom of the press" clause. Is this not correct? Has something changed? I believe we are on a slippery slope where a journalist is not legally able to cover police actions or even war. Our we headed towards a future where only "embedded" reporters are allowed to cover a story from the viewpoint of our soldiers and police?
By the way, last time I checked, two of the reporters from "Democracy Now" are still facing felony P.C. (probable cause) riot charges.

Posted by Jim | September 12, 2008 11:57 AM

---

In my mind, the issue is still unresolved. If, after a marches' permit expires, the police tell a crowd to disperse all the remaining journalist are technically breaking the law. Journalist would not be able to break into a house to follow a story. Can they, legally, disobey a police order to disperse?

I know what I feel is right, but have always assumed that journalist have some special constitutional privileges granted under the "freedom of the press" clause. Is this not correct? Has something changed? I believe we are on a slippery slope where a journalist is not legally able to cover police actions or even war. Our we headed towards a future where only "embedded" reporters are allowed to cover a story from the viewpoint of our soldiers and police?
By the way, last time I checked, two of the reporters from "Democracy Now" are still facing felony P.C. (probable cause) riot charges.

Posted by Jim | September 12, 2008 11:59 AM

---

No. The journalists don't NEED a permit. They weren't part of the protest or part of the organization that REQUIRED a permit.

I guess I would suggest that journalists have the same right to peaceable assembly as anyone else.

But, no, there are no constitutional privileges for journalists that aren't extended to everyone else. In fact, one could argue that broadcasters in particular are denied the full protections of the constitution.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 12, 2008 12:04 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor