then they came for the reporters

[dilletante]

the most alarming thing i can recall seeing so far related to the "occupy" protests, which i've been following only vaguely, was that police during one of the early evictions-- oakland? seattle? i don't remember where, and can't seem to find references to it now-- told the press to go away... and they didin any case it's nice to see at last (via

Comments

[klingonlandlady]

they're a news agency- they should already know what their rights are and who can tell them to go away when- if they don't know their rights, how can any of these people who have grown up without civics classes in the schools?

[xuth]

Unfortunately, if a cop gives you an order, you have to be willing to risk arrest and explaining your side to a judge even if that order is obviously not a lawful order (knowing that the officers in question are often fully prepared to commit perjury to support their side).

I do think the reporters need more backbone. But it's difficult enough for most people to tell a cop "no" even when it's to something as simple as "can I search your car" as opposed to "go over there or we'll beat you too".

[klingonlandlady]

Though "Don't fly your helicopters over the park" seems less likely to cause a direct face-off, and might have a little time in there for research.

[xuth]

Filtered through lots of crap, there is one specific incident that seems widely reported after lots of updates and corrections. It's that one of the news helicopters was ordered by ATC to move and the pilot "misunderstood" that to mean that they weren't allowed in the area. From what I understand, you pretty much don't question ATC, but on a cursory search I couldn't find the actual exchange with ATC. One can go to http://liveatc.net and listen to live feeds and recordings (up to 50 days old) of many ATC frequencies. But I'm not certain _which_ ATC frequency and specific time to check (I scanned through the half hour/frequency recording that I thought most likely contained the message but found nothing. It's a pain to scan through the audio recordings though

[xuth]

My experience has been that the NYTimes has always been _very_ friendly with the NYC police. They've always been quite happy to parrot the official line and rarely with any dissenting views. I can only believe that too large a fraction of their information comes from their good relations with the police to not do so. I can believe that other news agencies have similar relationships. The press passes that NYPD gives out ever so sparingly, apparently come with very tight leashes as well.

One can add to the airspace thing: NYPD doesn't have authority to shoot down an airplane either but Bloomberg seemed happy enough to tout the NYPD's "ability" to do so.

[klingonlandlady]

That's sick. I'm creeped out by the entire situation and Bloomberg's NYPD in particular. argh.

[miss_chance]

The more I think about it, the less I am surprised at how little the large corporate media is reporting Occupy, and the more I'm surprised at what it has covered historically. It makes me wonder what sorts of movements people tried to start twenty years ago that never got off the ground because there was no easy way for the participants to propagate images and ideas.

The revolution will not be televised because the media is owned by people who know they will be the first against the wall. Civic unrest is not in the NYT's best financial interest, it will scare advertisers and reduce revenues.

[oneagain]

No, the revolution will not be televised. It will, however, be on facebook, youtube, twitter, and live journal, with firsthand accounts and much video taken on the spot at close range.

[laurie_robey]

Thanks for posting this. I had not heard about the reporters rolling over like that. I'm going to go watch All the President's Men now. ;)

[artricia]

It's disheartening.