Oregon Media Insiders

I hope you did not interpret my remarks to suggest that we should be allowed to tromp anywhere we want and destroy evidence--That would be ridiculous. I only want to raise the topic for discussion, because the initial reflex of law enforcement is always to erect a large perimeter to keep cameras from recording a scene, which is not prohibited by any State or Federal law.

No one wants to compromise an investigation, but we are often relegated to the boonies, because of a personal bias against the news media by police officers. This is what needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

I don't know about the press, I do know something about police arrogance and they are the most arrogant people in the world.
Give an idiot a badge and that is the end of their humanity. From that moment on they are the ones who decide what the bill of rights means. Nothing.

Not all police are arrogant. But the uniform, gun, badge etc. does attract those who want to flaunt their macho image.
Those seem to seek out situations in which they can show how tough they are.
They seem to seek out people they think are inferior and use the badge to take advantage of them.
A prime example: Not too long ago I was driving on W. Burnside near third in a rainstorm. A woman had apparently slipped and fallen and I stopped beside her and rolled down my window to ask if she needed help. A marked car pulled up beside me and one of the city's finest told me to stop trying to pick up hookers and to "get out of his city". Then he shouted at the woman that he had better not see her in "his area" again. She started crying and then several people nearby helped her to her feet and she was obviously well dressed and not a street prostitute. This was in the mid afternoon.
This officer was a middle age "skin head" type with an apparent attitude that anyone who might be in that part of town was way beneath him. There seem to be a lot of those types of police in the downtown area.
I live in the suburbs and the officers there are totally different from those in downtown.
I suspect those with an arrogant attitude seek those types of beats where they can find people they can bully.
Rather than worry about education level, police recruiters should concentrate on weeding out those types of personalities during pre-hiring interviews.

This law is all but worthless for media. All this law says is media can't be held liable for failing "to assist in fire-fighting operations". This law does not address media "access" at all. It simply allows the media to avoid criminal charges if they don't help assist in fire-fighting operations.

Don't call the police if you have a problem. If your kid is threatening to kill everyone with his knife, don't call the police. Handle it yourself.
If someone is breaking into your car/house, don't call the mean and arrogant police. Call your neighbor instead.

If nobody called the police, then we wouldn't need so many police officers in PDX. We could lay them off and then we wouldn't have so many mean and arrogant police. Everyone can be their own cop and face the perils themselves.

And the city will be much nicer and friendlier and everyone will get along just fine. Because, the police are the problem, not the crooks and criminals. They are just nice people and if they knew we were nice to them they would not be bad and we would all have a perfect place to live, if it weren't for those mean and arrogant police.

Yeah, that is the way it should be. After all, this is Portland.

of Portland Police arrogance or violence....or pepper spray.

You're presenting two choices: arrogant, violent police or NO police.

Possibly, there is a gray area somewhere between these extremes. Perhaps police that a) exist and b) aren't arrogant and violent.

I have no dog in this fight--my encounters with the police have been few and courteous--but your argument is nuts, and I felt the need to point that out.

Carry on.

As a private citizen, I've had 95% great dealings with the local cops. They even caught the guy who burgled my house nearly 20 years ago--and got my stuff back! And were funny (Detective Touk, I think his name was--hilarious guy)! They've always been here for me. As a reporter, that number drops (mostly due to covering a couple of protests/riots), but not by much. Now, having said that, I'm a middle class white woman, and it's possible I might have had a different experience if I weren't.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

...all the protesters were entirely innocent. I'm not defending Portland Police..but to throw a blanket statement out there is absurd.

I've spent a lot of time in downtown Portland, and been close to many of these "Marches of the Week." I know for a fact that many protesters could care less about the "cause" ... some have told me they only march to mix it up with police or break things. Makes for a real "peaceful" peace march.

Sadly, this is another reason fewer and fewer people take marches seriously anymore. Face it, the only reason the common man/woman care about marches is when their commute home on a Friday is disrupted. And even then, they don't care about the reason for the march. It's reality. We're saturated with so many marches for various causes that it's only natural that they warrant less media coverage.

I'm all for free speech, but I'm starting to feel that these (insert cause here) marches like this do little more than make the participants feel self-important.

(dons an asbestos suit)

You equate a few of those cute anarchist kids with the thousands of folks who showed up yesterday and marched peacefully.
You have no proof that "fewer and fewer people take marches seriously anymore." You just pulled that out of your ass.
As far as the media coverage? 10-15 thousand people marched peacefully yesterday. They filled downtown with good cheer and hopes for a better world. What did the local stations lead with? A handful (less than 15) anarchist kids who wanted to raise hell.
Why? because violence trumps everything.
News directors have a knee-jerk reaction to it. What was yesterday's story? A huge turnout for a 5 hour demonstration? Or a couple of kids and 20 minutes of ruckus?
TV news has NO journalistic credibility. None. If it ever did.

Lead with the anarchists. I know KPTV led at 10 with the march and ended the package with the splinter group. They (anarchist kids) did not lead it. Why not try watching some of the stations first before slamming them.

anyway, i get paid to MAKE TV. when somebody pays me to WATCH TV,i'll monitor all of the stations for you. I saw at least one station lead with the violence.

out of 4. 25 percent. Not a very good percentage to throw blanket statements like they all lead with anarchist kids.

For what it's worth I caught Jim Hyde's pkg this morning (which I'm sure was the same one as last night after the protest) and it was well done. Focused 90 percent of the piece on the peaceful protesters and then at the end, mentioned the pepper spray and those who got arrested. For our family who took part, this was how we hoped it would be portrayed. Thankfully at least this time, FOX 12 looked past the sensational and the story reflected how we felt it was out there. Thanks Jim.

You definatly were not watching KATU....

Yeah, I agree, but why not just get rid of crime news and not report it? Not because you can't get close but because there are a bunch of better things to be reporting on.

Does any of this justify the general public being allowed 2 blocks closer to a crime scene than reporters? The answer is no. When an officer tells me to get farther away than the public from ANYTHING, I politely tell him/her "no" and point out the reason why. I've done this many, many times over the years in sseveral cities and never have I had a problem. Sometimes the public is moved back.. Sometimes I'm moved back. The real issue is that not enough reporters challenge the sometimes unreasonable demands of police officers. We BOTH have a job to do.. I respect them and expect the same in return - not to be punished simply because I work in the media.

There is no way curious onlookers could feasibly identify the victim of a serious accident to the general public. A camera and a TV broadcast can. It happens.

I've worked in several markets too. I've been so close to car accidents that I was able to clearly see bodies being pulled out. In those cases I felt the cops were not doing their job keeping us back.

It's not about whether anyone can identify bodies, or see the empty beer cans on the floor of a crumpled car. The point is clearly that the police have no business making arbitrary decisions about what they want us to see and report. It isn't their job to tell the media not to show bodies on TV or in print. That is the job of editors and news managers to set standards for ethical conduct by journalists in their shops.

Police are not the gatekeepers of information. We are. They are there to ensure public safety and investigate crimes and accidents. Our presence in no way interferes with that duty.

We've all been close to accidents where we see more than we should show on the air or print in the paper. That's nothing special. But I have also missed important shots because of being kept around a corner or so far away, I couldn't see anything worthwhile.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the police to restrict our access to information, of any kind. When they do, they violate our Fourth Amendment rights. It's called "prior restraint." Not much different than having a cop in the newsroom telling the producers which stories to include or delete from the show, or which photos may appear in the paper.

If I am covering a protest, and cops tell protesters to get out of the street and on to the sidewalk, then I had better cover the protest from the sidewalk, unless I want to get maced. That's different than being told to get back 100 feet from where protesters are being arrested and taken into custody. Again, presence does not constitute interference.

And neither of them justifies restriction of access. It is perfectly acceptable, (and constitutional) to photograph public areas of crime scenes, interview witnesses, conduct research about those involved and report all of the above, and still not interfere with investigation and notification functions of law enforcement.

The fact that accident scenes and crime scenes are shown on TV and in Print has never compromised a criminal conviction or kept next of kin from being notified. Occasionally, next of kin have learned of the death of a family member or loved one from the media. (Columbine, New York, 9/11, and many other instances.) That is an inescapable reality of electronic journalism.

Can you imagine the absurdity of not allowing the media to report on such events, until all three-thousand families had been notified? Hardly.

Should every detail of each investigation be available for public scrutiny? Of course not. But this is the 21st Century. We are an Information based society, and people want to be informed NOW.

It should be journalists who decide what information to print or broadcast. If they err, then bring a charge of hindering prosecution, and make it stick. We are a free society, not a Fascist State.

There is plenty of fodder for each of those. I guess I raise this because I encounter it on a regular basis. Because TV tends to need more instant gratification, if we are kept out of a crime scene or away from an accident, we have pretty much lost the opportunity to capture images and information forever.

With open meetings, public records, and open government, if you don't get it on the first attempt, you can usually go back and appeal a decision, or ferret out the information with time. Not always, but often.