Video: John Ziegler’s arrest
posted at 3:10 pm on April 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
From the Someone Left the Irony On Department, John Ziegler gets arrested by security guards outside USC’s Annenberg School of Journalism for committing … er … journalism. He wanted to ask people attending their ceremony honoring Katie Couric with their Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism about the award, and the Annenberg School of Journalism apparently objected to … er … journalism. Watch the whole video, as John provides a good running commentary:
Link: 
When will Reporters Without Borders lodge a protest against the Annenberg School of Journalism for having journalists arrested? Would Walter Cronkite have approved of police locking up reporters for merely covering an event and walking on property that is very obviously open to the public in doing so?
The Annenberg School of Journalism … teaching journalists how to stonewall and intimidate … journalists.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
Not in my case.
anuts on April 16, 2009 at 9:43 PM
As a sports journalist this much I know, you need a credential, typically approved well ahead of time, to enter an event if you intend to act as a journalist.
I couldn’t imagine waltzing passed the rope line of something as innocuous as a press conference without some form of approval from the host.
Sorry Mr. Ziegler, I’m usually on your side, but you didn’t prove much this time. Besides, we already knew that awards ceremony was chock full of hacks.
pugwriter on April 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM
I am pretty sure the sidewalks and roads are public, maintained by the city. As the video I saw was on the sidewalk, I am willing to bet he was on public property.
Skywatcher44 on April 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM
god man its disgusting how they willingly arrest someone who is “protesting”(which it isn’t) the liberal establishment, but then they let those tree-huggers and punk-kids on college campuses protest the minute-men, Tancredo, Horowitz, etc.
Ziegler’s funny as hell though.
bombos on April 16, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Is it “cold shoulder” time?
unclesmrgol on April 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Srg nuts and pooptech r rite it PRIVATE peeple. Katy shood ha.ve sicked dogs on Palintollogist Ziegler. Haveing servents take Ziegler away is mercy shown by he bettors. Ziegler is lucky he not stand on Romney manson 16 or he get rinos send to trampel stoopid ‘journolist’.
Newagegop on April 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
the auspice of any reason will do – duh – in today’s litigation riddled atmosphere who needs a valid reason? Illegal restraint, mental anguish, pain in the wrist that will not lessen over time, etc etc. The lawyers are money hawks and will take on any case.
Ris4victory on April 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
This is absolutely sinfully ironic.
Stickeehands on April 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
My $.02:
Ziegler looked for attention, and got it in spades. He’s putting a watered-down “Code Pink” style into action, and turning it back on the university/journalism elite. I don’t fully endorse his behavior here.
This is apparently private property, and the officers most likely had the legal right to take some action. There’s a decent chance they went beyond some of their policies here (handcuffing a guy on a pretty deserted sidewalk? He wasn’t being very disruptive, hardly any one is even in view).
They clearly behaved much, much differently than many campus officers have reacted to left-wing individuals, which may open a few eyes to the double standards.
cs89 on April 16, 2009 at 10:00 PM
USC? Private institution? Private property? Let the jack booted thugs do as they may. Boycott USC! Done and done.
jimboslice on April 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Armed rent-a-cops on a privet campus?
Claimed the area was “off limits” and claimed it was a “journalist designated area” at the same time?
They knew JZ name. They know he’s on TV and Radio in the LA area (all the way down to San Diego)
Where were the ropes?
Where were the signs?
For an event that’s “invitation only”
why do they have a “registration desk” out front of the event?
Me think JZ is going “cha ching”
DSchoen on April 16, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Related to the Annenberg Project, the only thing BHO ever ran in his life?
You know, where BHO spent over a hundred million dollars in Chicago schools & had nothing to show for it?
jgapinoy on April 16, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Liberal Fascism, plain and simple.
infidel4life on April 16, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Two words dude: Drug Rehab.
infidel4life on April 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Getalife’s mom…………
Seven Percent Solution on April 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Of course, those are possibilities. Point taken. Perhaps I should amend my challenge to: Under what reasonable complaint could anyone here possibly believe to be a valid case for Ziegler?
anuts on April 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM
As an alumnus of the Graduate School at USC, I just sent a nasty e-mail to the University’s media relations about their outrageous treatment of Mr. Ziegler. Not holding my breath that they will apologize and change their ways.
chemman on April 16, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Drug is ellegal dum Palinintoddajist. Maybe you and Palin and esskeemoes and Obama and wife si smokin payotee together.
You prabably carry arond gun and bow near peeples mansons! They can shot you!!! It there rite to shot serf if you offend ladies or lords.
You step on white house now you shot. Michelle shot u with bowcaster and you dye. PRIVATE PROPERTY = dead surfs.
Newagegop on April 16, 2009 at 10:33 PM
If you saw no police in that video, then that is a case of false imprisonment.
fossten on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I can’t believe I am saying this, but the quality of the trolling on Hot Air is going down.
Are the literate Koz kiddies busy with something else?
18-1 on April 16, 2009 at 10:39 PM
From the Mother Ship.
I put that post through an online translator…
The title is, “To Serve Man.” Isn’t that wonderful?
It’s still decoding the rest of it …….
Loxodonta on April 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM
The legal knowledge on here is astounding
Sgt_H on April 16, 2009 at 10:53 PM
socialist free speech.. for we but not for thee
allrsn on April 16, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Honestly, after thinking it over, that may be valid. And if that could be done, then kidnapping wouldn’t be that much of a stretch. Yes, I said kidnapping. Legally, they are quite similar.
I have liked some of Ziegler’s works in the past. And overall, I can sympathize with his beef here. Although, his ‘rights’ in this case certainly do not trump private property rights of others and I cannot excuse that principle because I agree with his cause. The guards just may have overstepped their bounds in the way you mention above. I’m still agnostic on that as I honestly do not know how much leeway is given legally to those entrusted to the private property issue.
However, it is still, (and I’m not calling you out for this) silly to speak of fascism, police state, etc.
anuts on April 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM
eh he did the right thing by shutting up and leaving. There’s bigger fish to fry.
johnnyU on April 16, 2009 at 11:20 PM
The other intersting thing is that they were threatening him with arrest… and did so more than once.
Do Rent a Cops on a College Campus have that authority or ability?
Or, do they have to call a real cop?
I could see them having justification if he was endangering someone, but he clearly was not…
Really don’t know WHAT authority they have in Kalifornia.
Romeo13 on April 16, 2009 at 11:23 PM
OK, what I want to know is how we can justify a public university (such as USC) as private property when they often get their lands through the exercise of eminent domain. After all, eminent domain is supposed to be restricted to public use.
Hawthorne on April 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I’ll take that bet. It’s clear from the opening that he’s in an area with trees opposite the building, not a street sidewalk. The street view from Jefferson and Figueroa on Google Maps doesn’t match this, either. (From the video and Google Maps, it appears to be an entrance that’s to the west, facing campus, not the street.) It’s not on a public sidewalk. It’s not on public property. It’s not at a public university. Argue the merits based on those facts, not false speculation.
calbear on April 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM
You are telling me that USC is not a public universtiy? They are not funded by tax dollars?
Hawthorne on April 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM
He did ID himself as a journalist reporting/documenting the event. He also presented his “credentials”.
There argument, Tom, was not about his “credentials”, they had no problem with his “credentials”, there point was that wasn’t invited by Katie Couric.
What kind of info about an event are you going to get if only lackeys are allowed to report on it?
Obviously he did nothing wrong and the Rent-a-cops DID cuff him.
Under Ca law I think he has a good case to charge the School and their rent-a-cops with assault.
DSchoen on April 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM
OK, I have done a little looking into this and USC is indeed a private university. So that part is settled. So Zeigler is already on shaky legal grounds here.
Hawthorne on April 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM
USC is a private university.
Loxodonta on April 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Since USC is a private university they can set whatever rules they like concerning your presence on their property. It is no different that you tossing somebody off your property that you don’t want there.
Hawthorne on April 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I believe most states (if not all) have citizens arrest laws that at least applies when a felony occurs. Although, there didn’t seem to be a felony in the video, so that would be moot. Of course, I don’t know to what extent it applies to California if any extent at all.
anuts on April 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM
This incident is very similar to what happened to an ABC reporter that was not carrying Obama’s water for him:
ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
By BRIAN ROSS
Aug. 27, 2008—
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
This incident is just one of many tactics that liberals and the Obama administration use to squelch dissent and free speech:
Obama Uses Thuggish Lawyer Tactics to Try to Squelch NRA’s Criticism
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/obama-uses-thuggish-lawyer-tactics-to-try-to-squelch-nras-criticism/
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:24 pm
If you don’t agree with us,you must be an extremist that must be shut down by any means necessary.
Free speech and dissent are no longer patriotic.
Conform or be shut down,threatened,sued,and possibly arrested for having a different opinion and daring to express it.
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
-
We will use law enforcement and litigators to go after anyone who does not agree with our cut-and-paste theories and ideology.
Document drop: Turning the tables again on Obama’s speech-squelching thugs
By Michelle Malkin • August 27, 2008 12:55 PM
And of course how do liberals react when their threats don’t work in scaring people off from asserting their first amendment rights,they try to have you arrested:
How progressive!!!!!!!!
Baxter Greene on April 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM
They have full authority to subdue and detain a trespasser. It is no different than you tying up a burglar in your own home and holding them until police arrive to arrest them.
Hawthorne on April 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM
not really impressed
blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Private property that is used as a public or quasi-public facility, such as the shopping mall lounges and open areas of college campuses, can lose some property rights under state or local laws.
Is this the case with USC and Ziegler? Nobody here seems to know California or LA County case law regarding this. However, in all the Campus Police trespassing logs posted up thread, the LA police were called to arrest trespassers in buildings.
With Ziegler, he was handcuffed and marched off campus by the campus police. The LA police were not called and he was not charged or arrested with trespassing. Why?
Loxodonta on April 16, 2009 at 11:54 PM
USC, is University of Southern California is Privet school,
I only know this cuz I though it was public as well. It’s a little confusing with the Alphabet soup names.
Examples:
UCSD is a public school and is under the University of California system
SDSU is a public school and is under the California State University system
DSchoen on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM
http://annenberg.usc.edu/AboutUs.aspx
From their “About Us” page
More hypocrite libtards
RightWired on April 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM
It’s their (or property owner’s) perrogative to do or not to do so. Of all the times I have had similar issues with my business (unwanted ‘guests’), it has always been my option to file trespassing complaints. Same when my employees have had to deal with the same if I was not available. The option is/was theirs as well.
I have never chose to do so as that usually grows into a hastle not worth continuing. It may have been the same kind of thinking.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM
*chosen*
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM
On standard private property, you have total control over who is present. A private college campus may not be treated as standard private property, but as a public or quasi-public facility that loses some of it private property rights under state or local laws. I don’t know the laws applying to USC.
Loxodonta on April 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Remember when the left said that Bush was trampling on the Constitution, taking away peoples rights, destroying liberties… remember that?
Who’s in office?
It begins here. With the MSM suppressing dissent.
Just like DHS.
Kini on April 17, 2009 at 12:31 AM
I think the real battle here is not legal at all. Zeigler can easily win a public relations battle on this incident. Regardless of what the legalities are, most people will see what happened as heavy-handed. They will also recognize the irony of the press avoiding journalistic scrutiny. Zielger needs to fight no those grounds and try to create a groundswell of public criticism.
Hawthorne on April 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Unlike the Bush era, though, the MSM either buries, explains away or is supportive of liberal bigotry against conservatives and suppression of conservative dissent.
And, we are not just facing the MSM and the Obama administration, but also Congress, much of the court system, the entertainment industry, and academia.
It’s troubling.
Loxodonta on April 17, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Just curious…was Annenberg a RINO?
Given the fact that he should have been aware of who Ayers was and yet allowed him to dole out money on behalf of his foundation…?
Or, was it that Annenberg just wasn’t kept abreast of where the money was going and really didn’t know anything about Ayers (how many of us did until a few months ago)?
Or, was it that Annenberg knew that Ayers’ father was a Chicago big shot and it was all savvy politics?
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 17, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I sense a Tea Party in the making right there on the steps outside USC’s Annenberg School of
JournalismFacismOh by the way, Perky One is a bimbo.
long_cat on April 17, 2009 at 1:05 AM
You might check Commiefornia law, Security Guards can detain ONLY if they witness a FELONY or bodily harm being committed. The sidewalks outside of USC are PUBLIC egress which makes tresspassing impossible.
It looks like John Ziegler has a BIG lawsuit for assault, illegal detainment, kidnapping and several Constitutional violation. Looks like the State of Commiefornia is going to be paying Zieglar a nice check and, if the LAPD and the Prosecutor aren’t bought off, a couple of security guards will be going to prison over this one.
nelsonknows on April 17, 2009 at 1:12 AM
So, you attended public schools?
Johan Klaus on April 17, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Ziegler represented a threat to the event in some form. USC obviously did not approve of his interviews with Obama voters after the election. The school did not want him there, so they harassed him. Pity USC, because instead of handling this in a more favorable public relations manner, they have now received some pretty poor exposure. That is what happens when the particular media is not on the favored list. USC “journalism” school looks very bad now.
thetowncrier on April 17, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Indeed.
This is how Fascism is defined.
Kini on April 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM
That was funny when he said “you are not the press” and then 2 minuites later said “you weren’t in the press area”. Was there even any other media covering it?
Dollayo on April 17, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Do we have a psychiatrist in the house?
How bout a veterinarian?
Joe Pyne on April 17, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Unbelievable! What about John’s rights as a member of the press and his freedom of speech? They held him under false arrest and they hurt him physically from what I saw. It looks like John Ziegler should look into suing USC & Annenberg big time! I’m with Ziegler on this.
sarahpalinfan99 on April 17, 2009 at 4:50 AM
Everyone who is going on and on about the legality of the cops or Ziegler is simply missing the point…
This happened at a Journalism school, in front of a Journalism award ceremony, with predominantly journalists and aspiring journalists in attendance, at a school that claims to be fully supportive of free speech. This is beyond simple irony…this is a monolithic monument to hypocrisy and a clear demonstration of the lefts inability to grasp what fair play is.
The legal approach to affecting a change is flimsy at best, the real meat of what is wrong here is in their flagrant hypocrisy. Focus on that and the issue will actually resonate, get stuck in legal minutia and people will get bored and forget about it….like they already have…whoops…
Sqrl on April 17, 2009 at 6:38 AM
You’re right if he was trying to cover the event inside of the building, he was outside of the building asking questions to people going inside. As he said they didn’t allow him in so he was covering it outside. Basically they arrested him for attempting to get in (nothing illegal about that) and then acting as a journalist on public property. He already has that credential, it’s called the first amendment.
TheCurrent on April 17, 2009 at 6:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7naTR5QCxo
lizzee on April 17, 2009 at 7:08 AM
Zeigler said on Greta last night that he is planning to sue. I hope he does.
becki51758 on April 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM
You know what? You miss the point. I guarantee you that j-students at USC are taught that they either need press credentials or some other prior approval to cover a private event.
Again, journalism is not showing up on private property with a camera and asking loaded questions. Zeigler was in no way acting as a journalist or behaving as a journalist here and USC had every right to ask him and ultimately force him to leave. Listening to you all rail against the Annanberg School of Journalism for hypocrisy here is like listening to a blind man critique the Mona Lisa.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 8:06 AM
The first amendment allows you to stay on private property when the owners ask you to leave??? Really???
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 8:16 AM
He is a police officer – not a security guard.
Blake on April 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Shipley, you’re full of crap. The reason I posted the trespasses from the USC media log is to show that they don’t arrest people for what Ziegler was doing. While there is prosecutorial discretion, you also can’t selectively enforce laws because you don’t like somebody. So, yeah, USC screwed up and private property had nothing to do with it.
Blake on April 17, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Of course not.
That’s really not the question though, is it?
The real question is about political motivations and the hypocrisy of the Leftist propaganda machine that prances around as the “legitimate” objective standard bearer of journalism.
They lost me at “You are not the official media”, while they struggled to figure out what the hell they were doing. Once they got their ducks in a row, trespassing became the way they were able to pat their forehead with a handkerchief.
/sarc Yes, Tom, I’ve seen countless times when the media goes into a neighborhood and camps out at someone’s house for a little sensationalism and the damn fools get carted away in the paddy wagon. Happens all the time. /sarc
Saltysam on April 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Tom…please….Tom?
Saltysam on April 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM
You could have asked any sane person to bet beforehand on the results of your search and they would have bet on your findings as you found them.
No surprises here.
But, thanks for putting meat on the table!
Saltysam on April 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM
If you’d like to give the fascists direct feedback:
[Personal info redacted -- Ed]
miles on April 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Blake,
AGAIN – THEY DIDN”T ARREST HIM! Ed and Zeigler are both incorrect in claiming an arrest.
If you look at the arrest logs, in each case a person who was suspected of not being allowed on campus was detained – this is exactly what happened with Zeigler. If you watch the video, they say they are going to escort him off the premises – which they have the right to do as it’s private property. If he chose to return with the camera and keep up his schtick, then they’d call the cops and have him arrested.
What they did is completely consistent with what’s in the police log.
Well, they didn’t say “you’re not THE official media,” they said “you’re not AN official media.” Meaning, he does not have press credentials and did not get permission to cover the private event.
Now, it seems that even though he didn’t have credentials or permission, they at some point said he could stay if he stayed within a certain area.
At one point they explain they were OK with him staying in a designated media area “even though you…”
Then Zeigler AGAIN cuts them off. Seems like the guy was going to say “even though you don’t have credentials” or something along those lines.
At this point, they had enough with him, uncuffed him and walked him off campus — which they had the right to do.
So, even though he didn’t have credentials or permission to be there, they were OK with him staying if he stayed within a designated area. But he didn’t. So they booted him. That’s facsism?
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
miles on April 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Real classy move. I noticed that on the video, the guy with the camera zoomed in on the security guard’s name patch for a good 10 seconds — obviously with the intent to ID the guy so dickheads like you could harrass the guy for doing his job.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
miles on April 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Miles, I’m just asking.
Wouldn’t it be better to out the heat on a little higher up?
I mean (and I’m asking from complete ignorance), wasn’t the guy just doing his job as he was asked to perform it? I would hate like hell to make law enforcement or security guards to be intimidated into fear of not taking action when they need to.
Isn’t it more likely that he, personally, had no political motivations?
Saltysam on April 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
There you go, Mr. Shipley. Just wanted to fill in between the lines a little so people don’t think your some sort of God of all Journalistic Efforts even though its apparent you think you are.
Rod on April 17, 2009 at 9:20 AM
I guess I’ve been in a bubble because this is the first I’ve heard or seen of this. Scary. We should all be writing/resisting. This is exactly why the tactics of CNN/MSNCB/CBS/NBS/ABC are so disturbing.
My own personal pride – after doing a live feed for CNN at the Boston TEa Party Wed AM, the correspondent asked if anyone I know might have seen it. I replied “I don’t know anyone who watches CNN. We all watch FOX.” She was none to pleased.
Oh, and their reporting of a few dozen protesters was two hours before the event began. One hour in we were at 1,500. They had left by then. You know they lie and cheat but it is enlightening and frightening to hear yourself misquoted and misrepresented and to see how they cover an event where you were present.
I’m going to go purchase a copy of Mr. Ziegler’s movie – and host a party to watch it over break next week. We should all do so much. Maybe I’ll buy two and donate one to my public library – I imagine they don’t have one.
gopmom on April 17, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Going by the technical definition of the word, they did arrest him. But then they also “arrested” those guys in the media logs prior to calling the police.
Point is, they were consistent in their actions.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Don’t be dense. I said pretty clearly that the legal issue was obvious…so focusing on it is basically agreeing with me. But thanks for that anyways.
The reason you’re missing the point is that you cannot simultaneously claim to fully support journalism and then throw someone out of your event (not even out of really, more like further away from) simply because you don’t like the questions he is asking. They may have the legal right to toss him, but they’re still a bunch of jackasses if/when they do.
He was a guy asking questions and whether he had credentials or not they silenced him. It goes in direct contradiction to any sort of journalistic sensibility. Throwing a bunch of legal crap and technical violations at that is a ridiculous argument. The bottom line is you can’t promote journalism by only allowing the questions you’ve pre-ordained as valid, which is what invitation only press passes and event badges are inevitably abused for. Saying the fact that he didn’t have credentials somehow trumps their hypocrisy misses the point that it is due to their hypocrisy that he didn’t have the pass he needed…
It is when you have the sole authority to silence your opposition that you must stand most firmly by your convictions and allow dissent.
Sqrl on April 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM
If it goes against the journalistic sensibility, then why do professional journalists ask for and receive press credentials when they cover private events?
The press, the any other profession, has rules to abide by. Why is there a rule that the press need credentials, exactly because of the reason Zeigler was escorted off. Journalists understand they don’t have a “right” to be on private property, that’s why they get press credentials. Zeigler did not do this. And even though he didn’t, apparently USC was going to let him stand in the designated media area, but it seems he couldn’t even do that.
That’s when they “silenced” him and escorted him off campus.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Dumbass: Once they put those cuffs on him he was arrested — not detained. While there are definitely instances when a person may be cuffed while detained and then releases, this is not one of those cases. Piss off, troll.
Blake on April 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Dude, he was cuffed while detained and then released (and I admitted that technically, that is an arrest). But he wasn’t booked and he was uncuffed shortly afterward and released.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
The next time, send a black reporter.
Cybergeezer on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Cronkite thinks Couric works for The Daily Globe, and Al Jezeera.
Cybergeezer on April 17, 2009 at 10:06 AM
So continuing to misstate my comments in order to attack the straw-man argument you put forth is your shtick then? Sorry but I’ve not asserted he has any sort of legal right to be there.
I don’t know how much more plainly I can state this for you, you keep going on about the technical aspects of what he did wrong and I’ve not disagreed with a single one of them, quit the contrary, I agree he made technical mistakes. Of course that ignores the fact that such technical requirements are abused for the purpose of press exclusion…something you conveniently fail to address from my comments.
But unfortunately for your position it doesn’t make a bit of difference what technical mistakes were made when you’re talking about an organization that is claiming to promote and support journalism. They dropped their trousers and took a giant steamy dump on their own reputation and credibility. Having a journalist arrested and thrown off campus for simply asking questions…whether they have credentials or not. Were they going to throw a student off campus if they started asking questions as well? What about faculty? A Dean?
If you can’t see how what he was doing was in agreement with the principles the university claims to support and how their tossing him was an utter mockery of their stated beliefs then I can’t help you see it…maybe try crossing your eyes? …no? Ok, well all I know is this discussion is stuck in a loop…so have the last word good sir…who knows I might even come back and read it …probably not…
Sqrl on April 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Actually, I strongly disagree with the statement that what Zeigler was going was in agreement with the principles of the school’s journalism program.
Zeigler and other sensationalists — see pretty much anyone on cable news — are a terrible blight on journalism.
The fact that he’s claim “the death of journalism” is utterly laughable. This guy is a self-promoting clown.
Journalism in it’s purest and best form is the collection, reporting of information. These are the fundamentals — the principles of good journalism.
Zeigler was not there to do that. He came in with an angle. He was not there to report. He was there to promote himself and his movie. He was there to make a point. I can’t stress this enough, he was not there as a journalist. They were kind enough to let him stay if he stayed within the area established to house journalists, but he didn’t even do that.
He didn’t get a press credential, which any journalist would have done. He didn’t stay within the parameters set up for the media. He wasn’t there to report on the event. He tried to pass out copies of his movie. I mean, it’s obvious he wasn’t there as a journalist. He was there to promote himself and his ideas.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Actually, I strongly disagree with the statement that what Zeigler was doing was in agreement with the principles of the school’s journalism program.
Fixed.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
They don’t book people unless they are going to jail. They issue a ticket, the person signature is a promise to appear, it is forward to the prosecutor, who either decides to file it as a misdemeanor or an infraction, or to dismiss it before the court date.
Blake on April 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM
In other words…
SHUT UP!
RegularJoe on April 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM
You mean like Dan Rather and his “expose”? And then be outed by the internet journalists that you think don’t have a role.
What you don’t see, actually you see but ignore, is the “pure journalism” died long ago…it is corrupted by the “journalists” who want to make a difference, change the world, but no report the real news.
So when someone wants to ask “Should Katie get this award because of one interview that they loved”, is that enough for a person who has literally done nothing else (but get bad ratings) to win a prestigious award.
A question that does not fall into your definition of “pure journalism”. But edited attack interviews are.
right2bright on April 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM
FIFY.
Joe and this guy didn’t deserve the nasty treatment they were given, but neither could they show credentials. Private property, too, and USC has the right to oust anyone they wish from same.
Dark-Star on April 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Pure journalism did not die long ago. It happens everyday at thousands of papers across the country. There’s a ton of good journalism and good reporting out there. Doesn’t surprise me that you seem to miss out on it.
And, I love how you think asking someone a question (maybe even a tough question) is considered “attack” journalism. If Palin had given good answers, no one would have blinked. But because she tanked, everyone starts yelling about bias journalism, etc… and I was under the impression that conservatism was about individual responsibility, not passing the buck.
Tom_Shipley on April 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Thanks for the link…great synopsis.
right2bright on April 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The really funny point to this is that Couric was being given an award. For journalism. For an interview.
waterfall on April 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM
The really funny thing here is that Couric was being given an award. For journalism. For an interview.
waterfall on April 17, 2009 at 12:14 PM
I’m adding: For a really biased, “gotcha” interview.
waterfall on April 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I haven’t read all the posts so I don’t know if this has been addressed, but isn’t USC a public/state school? If so, how does one say it is private property? He also didn’t appear to be trying to get into the event, but just to ask questions of people passing into it. Since when is it illegal to stand on a sidewalk and ask questions? If people didn’t want to answer, they just keep moving. If he blocks their way or harrasses them, ok the security guys have a point. If he didn’t, then they over-stepped their bounds. I also think that there should be posted information about what you are and aren’t allowed to do, if they are going to make the kind of distinctions they were trying to make. I think it was instigated by one of the officials, probably from the school, at the event who saw him and knew who he was and told security to make him go away.
kemphd on April 17, 2009 at 12:25 PM
TRUTH
Tom Shipley, I think you’re a total tool; but I will give you one thing: Palin stunk up that interview, all by herself. I thought Charlie Gibson’s interview was very smug, lots of loaded questions, etc.; and some of Couric’s interview was like that. But I was stunned at just how badly Palin did in that interview, on questions she should have knocked out of the park. Refusing to name the periodicals she reads — heck, even if she doesn’t read them every day, she could have reeled off a few names of magazines and newspapers from which — as governor of a state — she SURELY has clippings placed before her in briefings. When she dodged that question, she came across as clueless. If she’s not totally vapid — and I don’t really believe she is — she should definitely have done more interviews. To leave that Couric interview out there, without a chaser to help wipe the bad taste out of voters’ mouths, was a horrible decision on someone’s part.
So understand that I generally agree with you about Ziegler’s purpose, and whether he’s correct in his facts or his judgment of the interview. But as a matter of consistency (this is where I find myself thinking you’re just a tool), you should surely agree that free speech should allow people to make their case without the authorities pre-judging what they are going to say. I suspect USC was within their legal rights, but even if they were, it would be a P.R. disaster for Darth Vader in the black suit, sending his storm troopers to dispatch the rebel spy — it would be, that is, IF the mainstream media would report it. Which they won’t, just as they don’t report the liberal mobs that deny conservatives the right to speak, even when invited by the university (a FAR, FAR more egregious offense, both by the universities and by the media that ignores these disruptions).
It is that failure to report the facts, so that people have at least a chance to judge for themselves what to think of events, that is broken in the MSM. And it is the reason that Fox, despite having a decided conservative tilt among their opinion show hosts, is becoming more trusted than the other networks. Will they try to tell you what to think about the events of the day? Maybe. Okay, (especially Beck and Hannity) probably. But they will at least report them.
RegularJoe on April 17, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »