Posted on 05/06/2013 12:11:01 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
In the latest example of how the mainstream media is clueless to the online democratization of journalism, a CBS Miami reporter, who makes a living standing in front of the camera, confronted me about video recording him in public while on assignment.
Brian Andrews accused me of interfering with his job when I was not even talking to him or standing in his shot.
All I was doing was attempting to video record him interviewing my girlfriend, Rachel Mestre, about a brewing scandal involving a local towing company that she has been documenting on her blog.
My plan was to send her the video in case she wanted to use it on her blog because we all know that only a fragment of TV interviews ever make the final cut.
(Excerpt) Read more at photographyisnotacrime.com ...
Amazing, isn't it, how the press think THEY ought to be immune from citizen journalists? The big money behind the networks and the newspapers...and to some degree even the local news operations...enables them to crank out liberal points of view...but when regular folks get the equipment and cajones to scrutinize THEM, then suddenly THEIR rights are being violated.
The funny thing is, I am betting the author of the web site is probably a liberal, too...but at least he is trying to hold someone accountable.
Not as good as James O'Keefe, though! :)
Tell him you’re undercover with 60 Minutes.
It is the same BS mentality that makes them think they can stay in areas told to evacuate (like hurricanes coming ashore or battle zones ) and run around like little girls while property owners are threatened with being arrested for trespassing/looting or what not for trying to guard their property.
The Mainstream Media wants to be able to be free to cut/edit as they please to be able to put their slant & spin on anything in anyway that best suits them. So they’d prefer not to have things such as video interviewed videotaped since that could be used to quickly expose them for what they are.
It’s the same reason that bad cops don’t like to be videotaped on duty - it limits the possibility of their commiting crimes or lying about their activities and findings.
1. What if you were? Short of disturbing the peace, is that a crime?
2. It is ironic to someone from a profession famous for interering the jobs of others (ambush journalism) to complain about the same from bystanders.
3. Back to item 1, what makes his job so much more important than anyone else's that he's so righteously indignant about it?
-PJ
I hope this starts a new trend, ala taping LEO’s on the job.
Hmmm, same thing those unionized policemen say.
These reporters think they are celebrities. Report all the trash about them as well......
It does interfere with their job, as it makes editing the interview into a hatchet job piece of agitprop much more difficult.
I can't imagine anyone, private or public, being willing to be interviewed without making their own copy of the interview which they can bring out when the media starts clipping off answers or even mismatching questions and answers.
“These reporters think they are celebrities. Report all the trash about them as well......”
Can you just imagine pursuing reporters paparrazzi-style and then publishing all of their human frailties for the world to see? Can you just see them running to the liberal lawmakers to demand that ‘something’ be done?
I’ll guarantee they wouldn’t like to be treated the same way they treat everyone else.
An unedited original can come in mighty handy!
What if we had known of Jessica Savitch's cocaine addiction?
What if we had known of Charles Kuralt's bigamous families?
-PJ
In many, but not all, instances there were multiple media types filming the same interview, and others doing the same thing sometimes would be within the frames of their shoot. No one ever complained.
In the instance cited here, the filmer was filming a friend being interviewed and should be allowed to.
Experienced media people have no problem with someone recording their interviews, this one seems a bit green, wet behind the ears.
It bears remembering that there is no such thing as THE PRESS in the sense that word is used today — some sort of elite group whose members are allowed preferential treatment under law. In the Constitutional sense, “the press” is a technological device for disseminating information.
One cannot be a “member” of the press. One can only have access to a press.
Any device which enables one to state and publicize one’s views is a “press,” whether it be moveable type, offset, TV, radio, or the Internet. We all have free access to “the press,” meaning we have the right to pay any provider who wishes to sell us access.
In this regard, no CBS anchor has anymore claim to special treatment for being part of “the press” than does any blogger.
well said
Exactly, they would melt in the sunlight.
Precisely
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.