« Measure D International | Home | Measure D Gets Not Endorsed by SGVN »
Monrovia to Frazgo: “You are not media.”
By TheRealZajac | February 2, 2008
As reported by Frazgo over at Metroblogging LA, the Principle Information Officer of Monrovia gave him a huge insult by refusing to recognize him as a journalist.
I attended the city press conference regarding the gang warfare here. The city Principal Information Officer was giving transcripts of the mayors speech. Several of us asked for a copy and he replied “it is for media only”. I said, that’s fine “I am the media, I am frazgo at blogging.la and I happen to live here”. He said” I am familiar with your work, you are not media you do not get one” He turned around and walked away from me I said, “oh, can I quote you on that?”. He stopped for a second and then walked on.
Zach Behrens over at LAist commented that the folks downtown are always nice and professional to him. Frazgo likewise mentioned that he has been given press accreditation for various events before, leaving it a bit of a strange gray area. The Information Officer later told him,
“Since we are going for accuracy let it be known you are an advocate and we do not consider you media”.
Ouch.
The First Amendment to the Constitution, passed way back in 1789, stipulates that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) further says
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The British had a nasty habit of shutting down colonial printing presses that published things about the corrupt royal governors. After the Civil War, freed slaves were often denied citizenship by many states (both North and South). But press accreditation? That’s not a matter of law so much as custom. See, nowhere in the laws of the United States is there a legal definition of “journalist,” “press” or “media.” A professional journalist may be easily defined as one who is paid to do it, but what about people who go around recording what they see and distributing it to people for free (like a blogger)? Our social customs and laws assume that all media is professional. But the legal protections that journalists have stem not from special status, but from the same basic Law that protects all citizens. The Los Angeles Times editorial board publicly endorses various politicians and policies. Does this sort of “advocacy” somehow disqualify them as being media?
Press accreditation exists in a legal vacuum. Simply put, organizations, not the law, give journalists special access to people and events. Out of self interest, an event organizer will give the press certain privileges not given to the public, in order to maintain a positive non-adversarial relationship with the media. Throw hyper-local public officials into the mix, and you have a problem. See, the boundaries of the Foothill Cities were laid down over a hundred years ago in an age of very light population density, when the Los Angeles County was primarily agrarian and rural in nature. The methods of government that popped up reflect this “home rule” citizen-farmer philosophy. And as others on the blogasphere have noted, it leads to putting people in government who have absolutely no business being in the public eye (witness the Alvarez-Glasman fiasco). The laws regulating the media are rather straight-forward (don’t print lies), but corrupt public officials will happily litigate amateur journalists to death, knowing that they don’t have the professional resources to fight it out and obtain a Supreme Court ruling upholding their rights.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, Government, Media, FC Vs. LA, Monrovia |
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Eggzellent.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Why limit copies of the transcript to media only? Is that a violation of the Public Records Act?
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Dick Singer is out of his mind. Show him and Scott Ochoa the door.
Local Boy
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I should think that anyone at a public meeting that asked for a copy of a distributed doc would receive one, regardless…
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Of course, the information is a public record and should have been provided to anyone who requested one….but forget the law for a minute.
Singer must be an idiot, he is a public official, charged with ditributing public information, probably getting paid a $100,000 or so each year with public funds and he treats any member of the public this poorly? Fire his butt and give his salary to the police for increased anti-gang work.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I can see how bloggers could be considered illegitimate press in a sense (when you consider the vastness of the World Wide Web and of course the lack of rules) however, I view reputable blogs as a venue for information and an arena for open discussion. We as citizens of this country, have the right to openly discuss what ever topics we choose without being told which media outlet to support by a “information officer”. Is it his job to give out information or hide information?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Jean, interesting comments. A bit of information, I am a writer here at metroblogging.la the flagship for metroblogging which has some 54 cities enlisted, blogging and growing.
We aren’t without rules, accuracy is one.
I’m a believer in the ‘gonzo style’ of journalism, reporting as you live it. I may not be the best writer around but I try and tell the story as I experience it.
There are some who believe that information given the media is controlled and limited. My experiences the last few days make me wonder if my First and Second amendment rights are being violated. At least one person thinks so and suggested a lesson in the constitution be given to city hall.
Being called an advocate was a bit of a compliment. Advocate of what? Freedom of speech and press? Advocate of kids and education? Advocate of arts and artists? Advocate of what my community does right as well as in need of fixing?
If so I’m guilty as charged.
I may not be the best writer, but I have something to say and am very greatful David Markland and Sean Bonner (founder of metroblogging) asked me to be a writer and contributor there.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
You’re holding your own quite well Frazgo. I like the idea of bringing this to maybe the council’s attention. Ochoa would brush it off.
Local Boy
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 am
Second Amendment rights? Did the police confiscate your musket, Frazgo?
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Frazgo, you are sharp writer and you do write for a reputable blog, but in many ways that has nothing to do with the real conflict. The problem is, is how the Internet is perceived by “information officers”, people in power, and members of “legitimate press” (your competition) and their eagerness to control the discussion to their desired outcome. Major newspapers across the nation are laying off employees because of the popularity of the writing of online journalists. In some cases, their writing style is more ‘gonzo style’ (or honest), which I personally prefer, because the journalist is taking the topic to heart and not simply quoting quotes spoon fed by an “information officer”. “Release Writing” is becoming a notion of the past, the public doesn’t want to read regurgitated, “approved” information, they want to think for themselves, with all the pieces of the story, both good and bad.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Oopsy…meant 1 speech and 2 press in the first amendment. Was tired then. Tired now too, been a long morning as we had to run up to Santa Clarita for a 9am game. Our 5th Grade YMCA Mountaineers beat the SC Knights 21 to 9.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
It’s public record and he was wrong in not giving you the transcript! Make him eat CROW! Besides Blogging is the latest and greatest form of media that there is!
February 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Zajac, the musket line has made me laugh several times.:)
February 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
me too and it was my goof.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Bahahaha. Nice comment, Zajac.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I imagine Singer will confiscate Frazgo’s musket before a gangster’s 9mm.
That would be easy to do, publicizable, of absulolutely no use, and prima facia stupid.
Thus, totally on-par with all Singer strategies.