k wrote:

The first amendment is under serious attack following an incident that took place at the GOP presidential debates up here in New Hampshire. Matt Lepacek a member of the activist/alternative media group We Are Change was arrested for simply attempting to question Rudy Giuliani about different issues including the fact that he previously lied to the We Are Change group about his involvement in the events of 9/11. This event shows that we no longer have freedom of speech or freedom of press in this country.

I want more info. This is quite outrageous if true.

This article has a bit more detail about who was arrested. From watching the lower video, it didn't seem like they were so much interested in asking Guiliani questions as much as they were in yelling at him for his "foreknowledge" and "family dumping." They're not acting as information gatherers. They're about shouting their preconception. He answered their question, they might not have liked the completeness of the answer, but he is under no obligation to acknowledge them at all. These days the activist/press role is getting a bit blurry, but I think these guys fall more on the activist side of that line.

I'm not sure, but I think perhaps the video at your link is not the one that this article discusses. I saw this video linked off Drudge Report, and it is also on inforwars.com now.

What I saw was a guy with a press release asking a question. The press secretary challenged, "Show me your documentation." The guy said he would - that he had a laptop just give him 20 minutes of time at a table and he could show him - and then the press secretary called for him to be arrested, and he was.

I personally did not think he was any more agressive in his line of questioning as I have seen other more mainstream reporters be.

This happened in the post debate conference.

I have not followed the 911 heckling thing. I do think it is not the same incident though. Someone correct me if I am wrong. (I'm sure you will!)

skullaria wrote:
I'm not sure, but I think perhaps the video at your link is not the one that this article discusses. I saw this video linked off Drudge Report, and it is also on inforwars.com now.

What I saw was a guy with a press release asking a question. The press secretary challenged, "Show me your documentation." The guy said he would - that he had a laptop just give him 20 minutes of time at a table and he could show him - and then the press secretary called for him to be arrested, and he was.

I personally did not think he was any more agressive in his line of questioning as I have seen other more mainstream reporters be.

This happened in the post debate conference.

I have not followed the 911 heckling thing. I do think it is not the same incident though. Someone correct me if I am wrong. (I'm sure you will!)

It's not the same incident, but it's the same people. If you answered a "reporter's" question on one occasion only to have them insist you knew about 9-11 in advance and start yelling "family dumper" or something, would you give them another interview?

It also doesn't help that they seem to talk over whatever answer they're given. When they asked about breaking out the laptop, he said, "I would love to..."and you can't hear the rest of the statement because the "reporter" is yelling over him. This style of reporting is really similar to the one used by Bart Sibrel who provoked Buzz Aldren to punch him in the face because refused to stop chasing him around while shouting "Coward!" at him. If you ever happen to see the video "astronaut's gone wild" and see the context, the guy really went out of his way to earn that punch. Matt Lepacek is really no different. He wasn't arrested for asking a difficult question, he asked it and got a reaction. He was arrested for being belligerent, self-righteous and harassing. As a form of protest, this might have some validity. As a type of journalism, its really questionable. Even as a form of protest, arrest would be warranted because he entered the forum under the false pretense that he was a legitimate reporter. Even though he might have had the paperwork, he clearly lacks the understanding of the trade.

Ah - ok. I also found this about the incident:
article from New Zealand

I heard Alex Jones on Art Bell once, and Art Bell/George Noory (strangely?) don't support the theory that 'the guvamunt did it" at all. However, they do let them talk. I do think these people just feel like they want to be heard, and I wish they could be, it might even hush them up. Especially if people did answer their questions.

So during the CtC interview, they were allowed to talk, and for once they toned down the rhetoric, and then Alex Jones seemed a lot nicer. He's verbal style is so agressive normally. I don't know a thing about this particular reporter. I'd never heard of him.

My craziest psych patient often only wanted to be heard. Sometimes the ones that claimed their food was poisoned were REALLY trying to say that they saw roaches in the hospital kitchen, which I've no doubt they did.

Ok, sorry, I digress....sorta.

skullaria wrote:
Ah - ok. I also found this about the incident:
article from New Zealand

I heard Alex Jones on Art Bell once, and Art Bell/George Noory (strangely?) don't support the theory that 'the guvamunt did it" at all. However, they do let them talk. I do think these people just feel like they want to be heard, and I wish they could be, it might even hush them up. Especially if people did answer their questions.

So during the CtC interview, they were allowed to talk, and for once they toned down the rhetoric, and then Alex Jones seemed a lot nicer. He's verbal style is so agressive normally. I don't know a thing about this particular reporter. I'd never heard of him.

My craziest psych patient often only wanted to be heard. Sometimes the ones that claimed their food was poisoned were REALLY trying to say that they saw roaches in the hospital kitchen, which I've no doubt they did.

Ok, sorry, I digress....sorta.

I can understand that he just may have wanted to be heard... but that's sort of the problem. The press is allowed in to places like this to record information, and not to start shouting out their manefesto. I really don't think the arrest had anything to do with the questions, and had 100% to do with the "reporter's" manner. Even with the most irritating paparazzi, they shut up when someone attempts to respond. The fact that this reporter didn't get that sort of destroys his credibility. Reporters who carry picket signs have a very limited context in which they can still claim any journalistic integrity. If he was covering a protest, and was protesting at the same time, I'd think that would be fair. Hiding the intention to protest to get in the door somewhere and feigning "journalism" I don't think warrants the same protection as legitimate journalists.

Oh yeah - if anyone was right on the line b/t activism and journalism, he was.

However, I just wonder what would have happened if he HAD been taken seriously with his question, and if it had been answered.

Of course now I don't think we'll ever know.

I want more info. This is quite outrageous if true.

I agree with what terratogen is saying in the thread.

There are contexts when you must separate the function of collecting information, from the commentary aspect inherent in presenting it. This was clearly one of those situations. He wasn't trying to collect information, he was trying to make commentary. It was very two-faced.

What we should be doing, is striving to get the candidates into more situations where they can be confronted. I like to see how they respond to this type of thing. It often says volumes about their character.

However, in situations like this one, there are a metric fuckton of reporters wanting to ask questions. It is necessary to accommodate as many of them as possible. The root cause of this guy getting kicked out was that he was obstructing that process. I don't think "ambush" is a good tactic.

Reporters often have to ask questions many different ways, at many different times, in order to get real answers. That's part of the challenge. The other part, is being able to present what you get the way you want it. Be it as objectively as possible, or embedded with commentary, bias, or a certain world view.

We can make many well grounded arguments that the public discourse is broken.. Regardless of that, the concept is still fundamentally broken that people who have grievances can voice them by obstructing the ability of the entity they have grievances with to share their message.

Large press conference situations are chaotic logistical nightmares. They are very far from ideal for any kind of real dialog. However, we are stuck with that framework for a large number of things. The approach taken by this guy doesn't achieve anything, except maybe a dancing session in front of his own choir.

This hurts their changes of getting any real dialog with a candidate, because it makes them look like complete asshats to anyone who could/would get them access. It also hurts the chances of other new online media entities from getting access to these type of conferences. They had a chance, and they blew it for many more people then just themselves.

"unprofessional" conduct leads to less access to people who don't quality as professionals. Using tactics like this causes the divide between the mainstream professional media and new online user-generated media to grow wider and harder to traverse.