advocacy trumping science

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
2) TEMPORARY MEMBERSHIP
This pass provides temporary access to the Galleries and Capitol complex for broadcast news personnel.


GUESS WHAT!! Josh Fox tried to get that before yesterday, and was told no by the GOP controlled Science Committee.

Again, you've got the facts wrong. From HuffPo: "Fox apparently had applied for credentialing the day before the hearing but had been unable to obtain official permission to film. He had asked a credentialed film crew to tape the proceedings on his behalf but was informed that this was not permitted." The Science Committee has nothing to do with press credentialing, ever.

So, he waited until the day before the hearing to apply for credentials, and was told that he couldn't get a permit at that late date? Funny how Josh never mentions this is any of his public remarks. Could it be that he knows you have to give the correspondents' office more than 24 hours notice to be credentialed?

Also from HuffPo: "The hearing was already being filmed by C-SPAN. Josh Fox had only sought to obtain higher-quality video by bringing their own cameras to the event." So, it's not that footage of this event would have been unavailable for his movie - it just wouldn't have been good enough quality for his slick documentary. Oh, waaaah. I guess the freedom of the press now includes the freedom to get better footage for your career's next production.

[Grace62]

Again, you've got the facts wrong.

This is getting more strange. What you just wrote agrees with what I am saying, but you're using it say I got the facts wrong?

I agree with what you describe above, except for the part about the Science Committee (the group holding the hearing) have nothing to do with who is in the room. WRONG. Permission for temporary access can be approved by the committee's chair. He denied the permission.

" Fox said that he submitted several formal requests to tape the hearing, but that those requests were denied since his crew did not have Capitol media credentials.

Fox said he got in touch with a Science Committee staffer to see if he could appeal the decision directly to subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.), but that he never got a response, despite being promised one by 8 p.m. on Tuesday. So when he arrived at the hearing, Fox said he walked in and started setting up his tripod and began taping.
...


A Science Committee GOP aide said that he had no knowledge of Fox contacting a majority staffer for permission to film, though he noted working with Democratic staffers on Fox’s request, which he said was ultimately denied.

Committee Republicans pointed to Section 9(j) of the committee rules which requires that television and radio media be accredited by the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries. The galleries do issue temporary passes for journalists who don’t cover Congress full time, and press gallery staffers said that documentarians have gotten temporary passes in the past.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/021...z1lG83w3nQ

So why deny the pass THIS TIME?

[Grace62]

Yes of course he wants his own film. That's was documentary producers try to do, tell the story in as compelling a way as they can, with original sources when possible.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:

Again, you've got the facts wrong.

This is getting more strange. What you just wrote agrees with what I am saying, but you're using it say I got the facts wrong?

I agree with what you describe above, except for the part about the Science Committee (the group holding the hearing) have nothing to do with who is in the room. WRONG. Permission for temporary access can be approved by the committee's chair. He denied the permission.

Except i didn't say that the Science Committee can't grant access. I said it has nothing to do with credentialing. Details matter.

When you don't have credentials, you are at the MERCY of the committee's Chair and members to grant you permission to film. You don't have a right to film without credentials; it's a courtesy. And the GOP lawmakers in charge of this committee hearing didn't want to do Josh Fox any favors. WHAT A SHOCK!

Why didn't they want to let him film? Obviously because they don't like him. Duh. That's no mystery. If he'd just gotten actual credentials, he wouldn't have needed their cooperation. Why didn't he do that? Maybe making a big stink and getting arrested works better for his agenda? Or maybe he's just too incompetent to follow the rules for getting press credentials? Either way, he's the one responsible for getting arrested. Any implication that filmmakers have a constitutionally protected right to film hearings even if they CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE RULES OF THE CONGRESS is preposterous on its face.

[Grace62]

I really like what this blogger had to say about the situation. I think she sums up the key points very nicely and asks the right questions.

"Fox says that he repeatedly sought permission in advance to film the public hearing, but those requests were denied by the House Committee. By all accounts, there was plenty of room for the camera, and the film crew was not interfering with the hearing. One Representative made just that point, and asked that the rules be waived so that Fox might stay. That request also was denied. It's one thing to regulate media access if the room had been chaotic and overrun by cameras, but that wasn't the case here.

Why should a documentary filmmaker, exercising his First Amendment rights, be denied the right to film a public hearing? If every person filming a hearing is required to have a certain press credential, Congressional Staff or the Capitol Police should have helped Fox obtain one, not arrest him. If every person filming a hearing isn't required to have a valid credential, and the rule is enforced selectively, then we should all be concerned about the constitutional implications. Limiting speech or media access based on the content of the speech or the viewpoint of the speaker runs afoul of our core free speech protections. Only through exposure to divergent views can we be informed enough to make the important decisions that citizens are called to make in a democracy.

What Fox is doing with his filmmaking is exactly the kind of communication at the heart of our First Amendment protections. Whether one agrees with the views expressed in Fox's films or not, we should all agree that citizens have a right to know and tell other citizens what our elected officials are doing. We shouldn't be arresting documentary filmmakers in America for filming public hearings."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-bron...f=politics

[rjmacs]

"If every person filming a hearing is required to have a certain press credential, Congressional Staff or the Capitol Police should have helped Fox obtain one, not arrest him."

LOL. Fox has been filming at the Capitol for years. He knows the system, and he knows what he needed to do to get credentialed. He just didn't bother to do it. Next, maybe he'll show up at a White House press conference and insist that they let him in because he's a filmmaker, and there shouldn't be any restrictions on who can attend based on credentialing or protocols. HA!

There's no First Amendment issue here as long as Fox could have been credentialed had he followed the House rules for doing so. What he was punished for doing here was not following the transparent and reasonable rules of the Capitol. All of this censorship/freedom of the press BS is a smokescreen for his own irresponsibility and/or showboating for the media.

[August West]

I think she sums up the key points very nicely and asks the right questions.

If every person filming a hearing is required to have a certain press credential, Congressional Staff or the Capitol Police should have helped Fox obtain one, not arrest him. If every person filming a hearing isn't required to have a valid credential, and the rule is enforced selectively, then we should all be concerned about the constitutional implications.

Well said

[August West]

All of this censorship/freedom of the press BS is a smokescreen for his own irresponsibility and/or showboating for the media.

That's one way to look at it.

[Spock]

All of this censorship/freedom of the press BS is a smokescreen hiding the pollution of our drinking water,

[Ca Bob]

I don't think it's all that complicated. The Republicans have been attacking science and the results of scientific investigations when it suits their purpose. This certainly goes for the global warming story, and it looks pretty obvious here too. The committee chair didn't like the idea of the other side (which is what he obviously sees when he looks at non-conservative journalists) having a clear run at the truth about this hearing. You can write all the excuses about why the Republicans had some technical right to bar the filming, and you can point out rightly that there is no absolute Constitutional right to bring a camera into a congressional committee room.

But the obvious rejoinder is that Republicans of a certain stripe are afraid of allowing the truth to come out, and that is why they attack both science and honest journalism.