Recently, I felt Vice President Joe Biden was unfairly quoted in a speech that he gave at the University of Maryland on domestic violence. I am less supportive however about what followed the speech. A Biden aide proceeded to threaten a student journalist about taking pictures of Biden and Dana Rosenzweig proceeded to demand that the student delete his pictures and show her his cellphone. While the Biden office has apologized to the university, it is unclear why this staffer still has a job after such a thuggish confrontation with a journalist. It is doubtful that she would have done this with someone from USA Today or the New York Times. The Biden staff have been accused of limiting press and interviews due to the Vice President’s reputation as a perpetual gaffe-machine in public comments.
Jeremy Barr is a credentialed student journalist from the respected Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. He had been snapping pictures of Biden and suddenly found himself facing an irate Rosenzweig. She reportedly demanded “Did you take any photos during the event . . . I need to see your camera right now.” She then made him delete his photos and to show her his iPhone to confirm he did not save any of the photos. Barr complied and neither Biden’s Press Secretary Kendra Barkoff not Rosenzweig would speak on the record after the confrontation.
It was not until a formal complaint was lodged by the Phillip Merrill College of Journalism’s dean, Lucy A. Dalglish that Biden’s office responded. Dalglish rightfully called the incident “pure intimidation.”
Barkoff later insisted to Dalglish (still not making any public comment) that the incident was a “total miscommunication.” Miscommunication? A miscommunication is sending press to the wrong bus. Forcing the deletion of photos and search a journalist’s iPhone is a bit more than a miscommunication. It is an act of intimidation and abuse. So why is there no confirmation of Rosenzweig being disciplined? Even if this reporter was sitting in the non-press section, he identified himself. Moreover, I would be equally upset with citizens being treated in this fashion.
Biden’s staff has previously been criticized for their efforts to protect him from the media, like locking a reporter in a storage room.
Frankly, I am bothered by any politicians banning photos and recording of public speeches. This also includes justices like Scalia who use federal marshals against citizens and reporters.
Source: CBS
It most certainly sounds like intimidation to me.
Also, your theft analogy is facile logic. Nothing was stolen in the present story.
ARE,
“you have failed to show any fact that the photo was against the interests of Biden”
The fact that an agent of the principle threatened and then made the student journalist delete photos is prime facie evidence that someone under Biden’s control if not Biden himself considered the photos unacceptable and ergo against his interests.
You’re the one claiming it wasn’t. The burden of proof is upon you. Prove they weren’t against his interests.
Try again.
You cannot win this argument without making up a definition for censorship that does not exist which means you cannot win this argument.
Gene, given the FACT that the jounalist himself makes NO such claim that he caught Biden doing something illegal, or embarrasing, in FULL view of thousands of people is proof enough for most rational people. Only conspiracy nuts can draw the inference that because the photos were deleted they MUST have something on them they do not wish the world to see. You lack logic, common sense, and facts. Just becaues you are in the area where a crime has been committed does NOT make it prima facia evidence YOU are guilty of that crime. That is the leap of illogic you make.
ARE,
I don,t think many would argue with the need for press members to act like grownups and professionals. LK pointed out a few basic rules for good manners when acting as a photographer. I think the issue here is the insistence photographs be deleted once taken. If the photographer acts like a fourth grader or Hollywood paparazzi, then they do need to be escorted t the nearest exit. However, a photograph of a public event, no matter how it came to be taken, is part of the public record of this country.
What if some security officer had demanded Mr. Zapruder pull his film out of his camera and spoil it that November day in Dallas?
Whether the photographer obeyed the rules of good manners, as LK mentions, or not. The overriding point is that security demanded images be destroyed for no good reason. Personally, I don’t think any public official has a right to tell anyone what they can record or photograph at a public event. I don’t have a problem with security and the hosts asking for cooperation from the press as far as not causing disruption or a security issue.
Yet, we have Supreme Court Justices, those who would be the protectors of the Bill of Rights, demanding a complete embargo on any kind of recording when they make a speech. Even the hosts of the event are not allowed to make a record of Anthony Scalia’s speeches. That is simply not right.
OS the official did not insist that Biden NOT be recorded or photographed. I agree with you that banning such things as Scalia does in outrageous and itself should be banned. Since the person violated the rules, deleting the ill gotten gains is not unreasonable. Whether or not it was wise is an open question given the points being raised here. Being an amatuer photographer, I know that getting a good angle helps and making shadows more contrasting is good too in some cases. Photography is also an art, and giving one person better rights and privileges is unfair to the others. THAT is the real question, not deleting a photo of a crime or discovering some embarrassing shot. Would escorting the offender out be censorship too? Most of the protestors here would say that it would be.
Darren,
Copy that.
ARE,
“I DO know the meaning of censorship, and you have NOT shown any facts at all to support your contention. Now I WOULD agree with you IF the press people of Biden had taken ALL the photos from ALL the journalists there. THAT would be censorship.”
Nowhere in the definition of censorship is there a number requirement. It’s still censorship when “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” is banned but not all books are banned.
“I DO know the meaning of censorship”.
Apparently not, because you made a definition up.
Really. Go get a grown up’s argument and get back to me.
Gene, you have failed to show any fact that the photo was against the interests of Biden, and thus was censorship. The journalist himself makes NO such allegation and thus all photos of the event are basically equal and similar in content. So a more apt comparison would be if a person stole LCL from a bookstore, the cops come and take it away. That is not censorship. Now if the government bans the book itself and takes all copies of LCL then that is censorship.
Otteray Scribe:
Yes it is one of the drawbacks of open access. Part of me still longs for the days, probably around 20 or more years ago, when my BBS service hooked up to the internet. For a while it was great. Most of those who would contribute to USENET and other forums / technologies at the time had geeks or academics as users and they were a pretty honourable group. Then it changed.
I don’t want to offend anyone here that uses this service and are good people but when AOL hooked in to the Internet the floodgates opened up and thousands upon thousands of lamers and jackasses invaded the net. Problem users were abound and the relatively open services were taken advantage of by essentially sophomoric vandals.
But I guess you have to take the bad with the good, and I am certainly not wanting to go back to that 2400 baud modem.
Darren,
We have seen this phenomenon before. it has happened on this site as well as other bogs I frequent. When it happens, more often than not, it seems to be later in the evening and sometimes we find ETOH is involved. Not always, but often enough to warrant suspicion. And of course, this site has open registration, with no waiting period and no rules against sockpuppets, it is easy enough for a username to be hijacked.
I must admit that I also fail to see how accosting this student journalist could not be considered censorship. Someone on the staff of the VP is an agent of the VP. The VP is co-elected along with the president (or in rare cases through congress) hence being the gov’t. I don’t see how much more emphatic “government agent” is in this account.
The gov’t agent then demanded the student reporter delete content for which he intended to disseminate via the free press.
If for the sake of argument the student reporter was attending an event for which he did not have permission, that transgression did not permit the state to demand the deletion of the photographs. Essentially one could actually argue the photographs had property value due to the fact that they could be sold for financial gain and the demand to delete these photographs violated the due process rights of the student journalist because he was arbitrarily denied his property without due process of law.
Darren i see that you agree with the papparazi defense that they can go anywhere, anytime, do anything, and that they have rights over and above those of the rest of us. Sorry, but I do not subscribe to that. If you are in a place where you are not allowed, then you cannot claim property rights to the fruits of your ill gotten gains. A photographer who enters a persons house, and takes photos of the resident, cannot claim that he has property rights to the photos. It was probably overkill on the part of the staffer to demand deletion, but I can see a rational reason for it. They were trying to enforce normal rules of decorum for the press. If the press had no objections to the arrangements, then it is unfair to the rest of them to NOT enforce the rules by insisting that he delete the photos.
Randyjet or Arthur Randolf Erb? Which alias should we reply to? Seems to be the same individual.
Darren, it was late at night, and I put in the wrong name in the wrong place. randjet is my e-mail name.
Censorship
Gene, correct, it is a cut and dried example of censorship. The only relevant facts are that a government official was giving a speech, a citizen (that was also a journalist) was present and took some pictures, a representative of the government (official) demanded that those pictures be destroyed. Everything else is irrelevant.
I’m outraged you don’t know the meaning of the word censor, ARE.
censor /ˈsɛnsə/, n.,
1: an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security:
Well . . . not so much outraged as really disappointed.
In this instance we have an official suppressing photographs that are politically unacceptable. That is the very definition of censorship; the act of censoring. That your response(s) is (are) meaningless ad hominem gibberish in contravention of both the facts of the event in question, the definition of the basic terms and offer nothing substantive in rebuttal to LK’s statement?
Indicates that you don’t know what the word “win” means either.
Carry on.
Gene,I DO know the meaning of censorship, and you have NOT shown any facts at all to support your contention. Now I WOULD agree with you IF the press people of Biden had taken ALL the photos from ALL the journalists there. THAT would be censorship. I can think of many instances of REAL censorship, but absent any contention that being closer to the VP would reveal some material fact of public concern, such as his scratching his butt while speaking, or that he is a puppet and has a person behind him moving the puppet, I fail to see any real concern. I am only surprised that some of the people have not posited that possibilty already. It shows a lack of imagination on your part, and that you are getting lazy in making absurd charges. You could probably get a big following if you make that charge that Biden is not a real person and that the photographer took a photo of the person manipulating the Biden doll.
Given the facts as we now know them, it turns out the person had violated the terms of his press pass, and basically was cheating on the rules. He got what he deserved. Just because you are a journalist does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. You do not have the right especially in dealing with public figures who are targets to do whatever and go wherever you wish to go.Then the other journalists did not protest about censorship from what I know, and I can see why the others who DID follow the rules might object if the Biden people had let the guy get away with cheating. If he gets to go where he wishes, why can’t they? Why have any rules at all since it infringes on your “freedom” to do whatever you wish? Unfortunately as you and some others have shown, common sense and decency and respect for others rights mean nothing and strict enforcement of the rules is very necessary. In short, your support for bad behavior and lack of decency, makes this kind of thing reasonable.
LKsince you cannot make a rational response nor refute any points in answer to me, that is fine You have lost.
I am outraged at bogus claims of censorship and so called surpression since I have personally experienced REAL harrassment and police attacks on me for my views. My FBI file is rather large in fact,and I was visited by a couple of agents at work and at home about my anti-Vietnam war activities and told to join a more accecptable movement. When I moved to Houston, it was in the midst of a campaign of terror bombing on the part of the Houston Police Dept and the KKK against the peace movement and radicals.
I have been harrassed with phone taps, surveillance by the cops, the FBI visited my refinery where I worked and I had union protection. Fortunately, I had gotten off probation before they finally tracked me down in Houston. I have endured secret police provocation on the part of the Air Police when I was in the Air Force, and spying and other forms of harrassment there too. So I KNOW what surpression of my rights is REALLY like. So when some people who have done nothing at all other than shoot off their mouths get riled about bogus censorship or denial of non-existent rigfhts, I have nothing but contempt for such blather. I put my own ass on the line in many situations on political issues that could have and in some cases have had a deleterious effect on my personal welfare and living.
Arthur, I would normally be inclined to take your points, in context, and discuss them. I think with a more lengthy discussion we would have many more opinions in common than differences and agree that some officials require a greater zone of security than others.
BUT, while you do have strong opinions as your ongoing comments over time demonstrate, I am so appalled by your vituperation directed toward me that I do not choose to continue. Your hostility is unwarranted and unacceptable. Your attack is so remarkable that I am considering that your moniker has been hi-jacked because I do not recall you ever being so vicious to anyone previously. Maybe I missed those postings though, I don’r read every post/comment.
Suffice it to say we have nothing more to discuss.
LK,
Well said and seconded.
AP, excellent decision! Thanks.
ARE, I have a follow up response to your first comment. I can not imaging that your second was to me but I will jump in here anyway.
ARE, I recall when news wasn’t choreographed as much as today. 40 years or so ago I took a photography course at a local college with a well known local photographer. He was an independent and did everything from (at that time in his career) high end portrait work to freelance news. The course was part of the art school syllabus and meant to introduce photography to students as both art and business. He discussed how to behave and approach the job for each category of photography he discussed and assigned us work on.
For public photography he had a short list of do’s and don’ts, most of which would apply to anyone attending any public meeting or discussion and were geared to not disrupting a public event. One point he made though was that as a professional photographer (and he encouraged us to start thinking of ourselves that way and behaving in that manner) you had certain entitlements. He explained that those entitlements might be more easily recognized for a well known pro (as he was) but a professional demeanor would take even very young and unknown photographers a long way. Much of his training in this regard was giving us tools with which to craft a self image of professionalism and a set of behaviors that worked to project that image. 3rd parties did respond to that favorably, I’ve got a couple of cute stories about it in fact.
He said that when you were seated in a meeting (as you probably would be) never stand up and block the view of the people behind you to get a shot and never do it repeatedly. It was amateurish and did not distinguish you as professional. You only needed one or 2 shots at most. Leave your seat quietly, go to the aisle that offered the best shot, walk quickly and deliberately to the front, get the shot and either be on your way or return to your seat quietly. It was the way to approach the task professionally and worked for any public setting, public people were used to it. I actually used that training in a few different settings including a couple of political meetings back in the day when my camera and I were inseparable.
The concept of ‘cheating’ by not following rules that apparently demand prior disclosure of your profession so you can be manipulated in some way, even to which space at a public or quazi-public event you can occupy is a recent concept. It seems to be predicated on the acceptance of the premise that public people, our elected officials, can demand privacy when discussing public policy and business. If not privacy, then control the means and methods of the dissemination of that information. IMO any reporter should be able to take any seat available, take their notes, get their shot and, if questions are taken from the audience, rise to introduce themselves and ask their question.
The problem arises because of the incestuous relationship between the press and public figures that validates the presumption that public figures can exercise control over the gathering and dissemination of public information. I will stand pat on it being an abuse of the First Amendment.
LK I see that you are rather ignorant of history as well as being contemptuous of others rights too. I recall from history that FDR was NEVER photographed being hauled in and out of cars, nor were any pictures allowed that showed his disability. Then I can recall that JFKs womanizing was notorious, so much so that even as a child I knew about it when he ran against Nixon, though such things were never printed.
With your example of being allowed to approach a speaker such as the President or VP, I can think of no better way to get shot or taken down since we live in a FAR different world. Then one can only think of how your methods would work with 30 or so journalists trying to do the same thing at the same time. Having a designated area for journalists is NOT an infringement of anybodys rights as long as it is not so far away that they cannot do their job which is NOT alleged, nor were the photos from ALL the other journalists taken away EITHER, so your claim of censorship or surpression is as stupid as all the other comments you made.
continuing my last comment:
For the full order:
https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/re-matter-2011-national-security-letter
EFF’s Press Release:
National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules
Court Finds NSL Statutes Violate First Amendment and Separation of Powers
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-federal-judge-rules
The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative letters — on its own authority and without court approval — to telecommunications companies demanding information about their customers. The controversial provisions also permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying either their customers or the public. The limited judicial review provisions essentially write the courts out of the process.
In today’s ruling, the court held that the gag order provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and that the review procedures violate separation of powers. Because those provisions were not separable from the rest of the statute, the court declared the entire statute unconstitutional. In addressing the concerns of the service provider, the court noted: “Petitioner was adamant about its desire to speak publicly about the fact that it received the NSL at issue to further inform the ongoing public debate.”
“The First Amendment prevents the government from silencing people and stopping them from criticizing its use of executive surveillance power,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “The NSL statute has long been a concern of many Americans, and this small step should help restore balance between liberty and security.”
EFF first brought this challenge on behalf of its client in May of 2011.