Comments (20) | Add a comment
Thomas Mitchell
Wearing a badge doesn't make you an editor
Updated: Nov. 23, 2009 | 11:10 p.m.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."
-- Fourth Amendment
Everybody wants to be the editor. Everybody wants to decide what reporters can report and photographers can photograph. Everybody knows instinctively what is newsworthy for everyone else, and what is not.
This certitude is present in everyone with a modicum of authority, from the president to the lowliest bureaucrat.
For years, we and other newspapers have complained in futility about cops who want to play editor. When reporters and photographers arrive on the scene of a crime or some mishap and identify themselves as members of the press, they are corralled in some isolated, taped-off area out of view of the scene, out of earshot, lest they photograph or report something the cops don't want the public to see. It might be a corpse, an injured officer, a victim or a witness.
Never mind that our photographers shoot hundreds of frames and we edit them down to one or two to publish. And we certainly don't wish to drive away our readers by publishing something outside the boundaries of newsworthiness. (Example: When The Associated Press made available photos of a bleeding and dying soldier, we declined to publish. Our call. Had there been an overriding rationale to do so, it might've been different.)
Meanwhile, as the professional journalists remain cordoned off despite the imprimatur of press passes and a recognized duty to be on the scene to act as the surrogate of the taxpaying public, ordinary citizens are free to wander around at will.
(As I was working on this column Thursday morning and monitoring the breaking news about an off-duty Las Vegas police officer being shot to death, little did I know that I was being prophetic. When the officer's body was about to be loaded in a coroner's van, an officer directed a passenger-filled CAT bus to pull forward, blocking the view of the assembled photographers on the public sidewalk across the street.)
Now that attitude has been extended to Family Court.
On Monday, a throng of reporters and photographers gathered at Family Court for a child support hearing for Dr. Conrad Murray, whose medical care for the late pop star Michael Jackson has drawn the scrutiny of authorities and the press.
When the hearing was over, Dr. Murray exited, but the journalists in the courtroom were blocked by an armed bailiff, presumably so the celebrity doctor could escape the courthouse without being pestered by those rude members of the Fourth Estate.
Yes, those mob scenes of screaming tabloidistas and scrambling paparazzi are so unseemly, even embarrassing to those of us in the more genteel ranks, but that is no license for the bailiff to play editor.
The Review-Journal sent a letter to the presiding judge that day protesting the detention of our reporter.
"Brian Haynes, a reporter for the Review-Journal, was detained, along with other reporters, in your courtroom by court marshal Dennis Curran, following the Dr. Conrad Murray hearing," the letter stated. "We believe this conduct was outrageous. Reporters have a right to exit the courtroom at the same time as other participants or spectators to the proceedings. This was not a criminal matter and there were no security concerns present. We believe your bailiff's actions serve to undermine respect for the court system since it showed favoritism for Dr. Murray."
After receiving the letter, Chief District Judge Art Ritchie called with a rationalization but no excuse. He said the bailiffs were trying to maintain public safety, noting that it is routine in Family Court, where feuding parties have been known to come to blows, for bailiffs to detain one side in a dispute while the other exits the building. In hindsight, he conceded there was no justification for blocking the journalists from performing their duties, and safety could have been assured simply by escorting the doctor from the building.
"The court would do it differently, certainly, in the future," the judge said.
The next day The Associated Press added its own letter of protest for the record.
"It seems plain from the circumstances that court security personnel intended to spare Dr. Murray the inconvenience of facing questions from the reporters about his treatment of Michael Jackson," writes David Tomlin, an AP attorney.
"The court and all connected with it should be ashamed of this fiasco, carried out in its name and under its authority. If there is a plausible explanation consistent with the U.S. Constitution and state law, we would love to hear it."
In a follow-up story about the incident, reporter Haynes quoted me as saying the detainment was a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and a violation of the First Amendment protection of the free press.
"A free press without access is a mockery ... it is not the role of bailiffs to assume the job of editor and decide who gets to ask questions and who doesn't."
Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of a free press and access to public information and meetings. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj/blogs/mitchell.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Mr. Mitchell - Now that the RJ has evidence of criminal activity at the Family Courthouse, including your own reporter's Brian Haynes, will you expose the Family Courthouse.
We have evidence from hearsay to criminal fraud. Could you please notify the following bloggers that the Clark County liability carrier wants to hear from them. Thanks. YOUR RIGHT! 702-787-0002
How dare those stupid cops use their fancy yellow tape to restrict public access to crime scenes. I can't believe they don't want some highly trained journalist or photographer, entering the scene and talking to or taking photos of dead bodies, evidence, witnesses, and family members. Damn it...the public has a right to know. I completely agree with you Mr. Mitchell. The Press, and for that matter any Joe Citizen should not be restricted in anyway from entering crime scenes.
Give me a break. I love how you start your piece off with, "everyone wants to be an editor." It should have read, "everyone wants to be a cop." The term "investigative reporting" is a perfect example. The fact is, the "Media" doesn't care about victims, witnesses, or their families. All you want, is a story. You want some piece of information that your competitor doesn't have. That way you can say it's exclusive and people shoud read your story. Which is all generated by greed and your desire to make money. You make money off of other people's misfortunes. You then print it and act like your doing service for all of us citizens who read your garbage.
I have watched countless times, some stupid reporter, interviewing some stupid witness of a homicide. They put their face and name all over the TV. In return, they compromise the entire investigation.
You act like you editor's are so smart. You really expect us to believe that you can be trusted to make a wise decision about whether or not you should publish sensitive material. Yeah right...
Oh and by the way. Why do you think you have the right to tell the world about how some dead beat dad isn't paying his child support? You really think that's news?
Tom, you are the editor, but the real story is how the public is being treated by these untrained "baliffs" everyday outside the courtrooms. The judges acted like they do not know what is happening outside their courtroom.
Gradparents and even parents are being prevented fron going into the courtroom in Abuse/Neglect court, even when the hearing is not closed to the public without any direction by the judge.
The credentialed press with press passes should be allowed at whatever scene there is to act as the surrogate of the taxpaying public.
Cops and the government should get out of the way so that the press can give the public the who, what, where, when, and why as to what needs to be reported to the citizens.
We have three documents by Chief Judge Ritchie, Junior in which he cites EDCR 2.23(c) to not hear about a child's abuse. This violates EDCR 1.31 in which the child's abuse is to be heard.
Mr. Mitchell - Will you be teaming up with TMZ's producer and attorney for People's Court, Harvey Levin, to expose the crimes of Clark County Marshals?
We will provide you all the evidence you need. We are the parents that have been imprisoned in the family courthouse by Clark County Marshals for years without probable cause.
Please know, Wackenhut also contracts as security at the family courthouse and has committed the same crimes.
Additionally, please know a parent falsely imprisoned by Clark County Marshals at the family courthouse sued through the ACLU. He won a landmark decision that he can seek damages from the Clark County Marshals' "personal" assets.
Sgt. Steve Rushfield, authority over Clark County Marshals, continues his practice of not filing incident reports of Clark County Marshals criminal activity.
Mr. Mitchell - You have a landmark case The lack of evidence is overwhelming proving your case. We are lookiing forward to the Review Journal giving this all the exposure it needs.
RJ Reporter Brian Haynes - How are you going to spend your settlement money?