That is not my position. Certainly Franklin would not have had that view. But neither do I think that the Constitution recognized a separate role for journalists that was distinct from that of any other American.
Consider the Good Samaritan law in Vermont that requires a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need. Should a news cameraman that arrives at the scene of an accident film the scene and not even call 911 because his role is to be a neutral observer than a participant?
Should there be a distinction between a journalist that taps a phone to break a story and any other citizen that taps a phone and then provides that information to the public either directly or indirectly through a journalist?
The poor bastard probably lays in bed at night dreading the inevitable summons to appear before a Federation of Planets review board for violation of the Prime Directive.
I don’t think the Constitution grants journalists extra rights, but I think it does recognize that a free press has a role to play that is a bit different from the role of free speech. Like I said, look at the Zenger case. The people who wrote the First Amendment wanted to make sure the federal government couldn’t stop journalists from doing their jobs.
That’s not how cameramen work or how journalistic neutrality works. If he’s driving around on his free time, yes, he should call 911. There’s no reason he should think to reach for his camera - a traffic accident generally isn’t news. If he’s in a war zone or at the scene of a protest and someone is injured, yes, ethically can film it while other people call 911.
In the first case the journalist might be committing a crime and in the second case someone else committed a crime, so yes, that’s different. But if you’re asking me if the laws against tapping phones don’t apply to journalists- yes, of course they do.
I wonder if we’re talking past each other a little, fumster. I don’t think journalists have more rights than other people (I do support shield laws, however) and I don’t think basic human decency fails to apply to journalists with some very limited exceptions regarding impartiality when they are on the job. So I think you need to define your complaint about “the whole ‘I’m a journalist, I’m special’ mentality.” I don’t think Datena is saying he’s special, for example. I think he may be concerned that his involvement in this hostage situation could compromise his ability to do his job, in which case I think he’s wrong but it’s something he does have to be vigilant about.
As you commented, we may be talking past each other here, but it still seems as though you are seeing the First Amendment reference to “the press” as being somehow specifically or especially related to journalists rather than to the print medium.
I’m not sure if newspapers were even as important as books and pamphlets in the minds of the drafters of the Constitution when they used the term “free press”. What they certainly did not have in mind was the “The Press” as we use the term today to refer to professional journalists. That usage came later.
ETA: I see that I’m derailing the conversation about the actual OP with this distinction, so I won’t continue.
That’s who used the medium, though. Journalists and pamphleteers and book publishers. Yes, the First Amendment also deliberately protects your right to write and print stuff for your own use. But they were also recognizing mass communication here. They weren’t recognizing a professional class of people, but then again you can be a part-time unpaid journalist.
Again: look at the Zenger case. Zenger wrote and published a newspaper.
Do you have anything to show that the Zenger case was a primary motivator of the free press clause as opposed to the more general meaning of protecting individuals who used the print medium for other uses besides newspapers?
I was put off by this one local case, a reporter(basically) and his cameraman go to the scene of an unsuccessful earlier police raid that was attempting to arrest a gang member wanted for murder. They run into the gang member and then get in their car with him, he calls someone on a cell phone and starts speaking in obvious code and the reporter gets freaked out that his life might be in danger(supposedly one is one means a hit I have heard) so he calls the cops. I thought he should have never let the guy in his car, apparently he thought the guy was surrendering to him or something. It was all videotaped.
So here is James Madison making an even clearer distinction between speech and print, making a distinction between printing your opinions and journalism, and at least to my reading, using “the press” the same way we do today.
But I came back to this thread for a different reason: yesterday some lunatic pushed a stranger onto the subway tracks as the Q train approached, and the man was killed. A man described as a freelance photographer saw it all happen and wound up with a front page picture. It sounds like people are calling for the photographer’s head, but he says he just snapped his shutter a bunch of times in the hope the conductor would see the flash and be able to stop the train. He doesn’t seem to have been close enough to help. I don’t know if what he did would have actually helped, but if he’s telling the truth I can’t fault him. But my first reaction is that the Post shouldn’t have run the picture. It’s just lurid and disrespectful. (For those nervous about clicking, there’s no gore. It’s a picture of the victim trying to get back on the platform shortly with the train bearing down on him.) It’s a class journalism school ethical problem, but mostly it’s just very, very sad.
Yes. I’d like to believe Abbasi was telling the truth and didn’t live up to the worst stereotypes of journalists here, but after a little reflection his pictures look awfully good considering his story. It’d be kind of surprising for one picture to come out this well if he were just running and trying to fire off his flash, but it looks like there are at least three that were well composed. Based on the pictures that have been made available he doesn’t seem to have been moving toward Han and may have stepped back to get a better picture. I don’t know if he could have helped, but if it were me I think I’d sleep better knowing I’d tried to help rather than concluding that I couldn’t have and taking pictures instead.
Without more information I’d have to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not overly surprising that a professional photographer pulls off a quality shot while on the run. And as mentioned in your link, the photos were probably cropped to improve the composition. If he released all the original shots (almost said negatives there), we might get a better idea.
ETA: I agree with Irby, human first, photographer second.
He says he wasn’t even looking where he was shooting. For him to just sort of aim the camera at the train conductor and wind up with pictures like this while running (he says he didn’t adjust his settings either) seems unlikely to me. And yes, if he releases all of his photos and the associated data it would probably resolve this question.
I’d hate for Abbasi to be hounded unfairly, but I also really have trouble believing his story. It would clear things up a great deal if he released all the photos and people could judge the timestamps and the distance covered. I don’t know if you would really get pictures that clear if he were running and had the flash set on 1/64th second (as he says) and I still think the photos that have been released look much too good considering he say he was just shooting in the direction of the train and wasn’t trying to get pictures of Han.
Which morals are you talking about? If you are talking about the normal morals we all follow, then yes, I can see that.
However, journalists do have a special role and a difficult one as well. I would press upon you that we are all suffering right now from the paucity of good, objective reporting. Opinion pieces masquarade as news and journalists throw themselves into the story to make a name for themselves; and, the objectivity is gone.
The reporters actions speak highly of his moral character as a person, but the moment he took up the offer to talk to the hostage taker, he ceased being a journalist and became a witness and participant. This is not a problem as long as he recognizes that.
I feel that many journalists do not understand the difference.
You’re right: it doesn’t. The Constitution is a highly regarded document that enshrines some of the principles that makes effective journalism possible; this is probably where the confusion started.
That was my derail. I feel like a mis-reading of the term “the press” in the Constitution has led Americans to feel that there is a special set of rights and privileges for journalists as opposed to the general set of rights we all enjoy related to creating and distributing printed material.
It’s not worth derailing this thread, and if I feel like it I may open a separate thread at some point.
