UPDATE Triumph of the First Amendment

Last week, we were still scratching our heads over the story out of Cincinnati following a Town Hall meeting from Congressman Steve Chabot, where his staff and a Cincinnati police officer confiscated video cameras and cellphones from citizens attending his public meeting -- in a public space.

To say the imagery of police action stopping the open exercise of the very First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights was extraordinary, especially in our backyard. The policy was quickly modified, but still left unsaid (at least in this writer's view) is the severe dampening impact and unconstitutional behavior of a police officer, sworn to uphold the law, using his power of authority to strip citizens of their rights.

At least in Boston that question has been answered.

The U.S. District First Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on the 2007 case of Simon Gilk of  Boston who, exercising his First Amendment rights to record police arresting a suspect on Boston Common, was arrested for violating wiretap laws among other charges. 

Yeah, that Boston Common. Boston's Central Park. With Common to denote it's perhaps one of the ultimate of public spaces in a city often described as the "Cradle of Liberty."

The Commonwealth quickly dropped some of the charges, and a city judge dumped the rest. Which shows the power of the courts when someone with a law degree gets involved. Unfortunately, officers don't have someone with a law degree by their side when making decisions. Despite dropping the charges, Gilk felt it left open the power of the police department to detain, question, and arrest anyone exercising their First Amendment right.

Here's a big problem for the police: Gilk is a lawyer. He's not just some regular citizen recording from their front yard, such as Akron's Sarah Watkins, who was arrested for doing the very same thing from her own property earlier this year. Gilk's story bears watching in this video from the American Civil Liberties Union; it includes Gilk talking about his experience as well as the actual video he shot with his cellphone:

Just to be clear, here's what the First Amendment looks like -- with my emphasis in boldface:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

Seems pretty clear this section of the bedrock of our laws targets government from stopping citizens from exercising in their freedom of speech rights. But, and not surprisingly, some law enforcement agencies take the position citizens using cameras and microphones on public right-of-way violates the rights of the public employee.

A federal court now says otherwise, with a decision that addresses the narrow and specific issue of whether Boston's police officers violated a citizen's civil rights through the action. The answer is yes, they did. Such actions by the public "fits comfortably" with the principles expressed by the First Amendment. Police should not have arrested the man with the microphone. By extension, police shouldn't stop citizens from using cellphones, cameras or recording equipment to show them at work. 

HERE's a link to get a .pdf view of the Court's decision

Oddly enough, officers defending themselves in the now-federal case argued they shouldn't even be questioned because they had qualified immunity. Boston's federal appeals judges tossed that issue aside; qualified immunity doesn't apply when denying civil rights, and make no mistake: the freedom of speech is a basic civil right. Actually, it's the first.

The First Circuit noted the issue in it's narrow form: "...is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police officers carrying out their duties in public?" The court says the answer is "...unambiguously in the affirmative." For anyone needing a translation, that means yes. It's your right. And police or other public officials stopping you from doing so, even to the point of arrest, are violating your rights.

The First Circuit spreads it's judicial authority over Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico. It's opinion does not cover the ten other districts serving the rest of the United States, but it sends an important and powerful message to those who would muzzle the ability of citizens to exercise their most basic of rights.

The Failure of the First Amendment

A couple days ago, a Congressman held a Town Hall meeting. Police -- at the direction of the Congressman or his staff -- confiscated citizen cellphones and video recorders in order "to protect the constituents" but left a TV station's camera alone.

Don't take my word for it; the video is pretty self-explanatory and worth watching.



Last year it would have been Democrats targeted by Tea Party activists; this time it's Republican Steve Chabot of Cincinnati targeted by Progressive activists.

Since this happened, Chabot's spokesman Jamie Schwartz says they won't confiscate cameras or cellphones in the future. Video recording was banned, Chabot's office says, because sometimes people ask questions with personal details that should remain personal. The news media cameras could stay because the media could be "...expected to respect people's privacy."

That politicians don't want to be caught on video saying something stupid, or looking stupid, isn't a surprise. They manage to do so quite nicely, with or without video, and most understand it's the way democracy works.

Reminder:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

My boldface enhancing the Oath of Office members of Congress take upon a new term. It's important, those words to "support" and "defend" the Constitution, which includes this language to lead off the Amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

Most police officers also take an Oath of Office, and that sworn duty usually includes language relating to the Constitution. In this case, what exactly does "protect constituents" mean? Is it the same as "that's what they want," as noted by the police officer? Security reasons? When a TV station camera is filming the entire exchange?

In a public school -- a school gymnasium -- where one would assume during games played by children their parents are free to use cellphones and video cameras to share the experience?

During a public meeting, in a public venue, held by a public official -- with a public police officer enforcing "what they want."

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" apparently was enough for the Chabot entourage and this police officer to leave the media alone, but they only got it half right.

- - -

This is a disturbing trend, the open disdain for the rights of citizens to monitor their government at work -- whether it be Congress or the police. And it's a trend that should unite those of us in the media to stand up and speak out when any citizen's most basic, most Constitutional right is violated.

Last January here in Akron, a police officer who ignored a superior's command to ignore a women filming him -- from across the street, on her own property -- and arrested her. Phil Trexler's excellent reporting here in the Akron Beacon Journal jump starts the story, which continues on appeal.

In July, a similar story grabbed headlines and a quick response from the news media (including RTDNA, the Radio Television Digital News Association) when a police officer in Suffolk County, New York arrested a photojournalist for daring to follow along with the aftermath of a high-speed chase. Again, let's go to the video:



My friends in law enforcement don't like it when cameras catch cops doing bad things. I can't blame them. I don't like it when cameras catch reporters doing bad things, either, but a cornerstone of the American way of life is the central theme of the public right to know.

While video or audio from a 9-1-1 call may not tell the complete story, they are important tools that allow the folks paying the bill to see and hear for themselves. It cuts both ways; it condemns those who would abuse their power, but it also illuminates and protects those from abuse. Just ask any police officer about the impact of dash-cam video when used to prosecute drunk and reckless drivers. It's made their job not only more efficient, but more just.

This First Amendment is what distinguishes the U.S. Constitution from those in so many other nations; the belief that the people ultimately hold the cards, and the people can be treated like adults to digest what they see, hear and read to decide for themselves.

Hiding the wheels of justice, or hiding a Congressman from his own constituents, is a no-brainer abuse of the U.S. Constitution these public servants take an oath to uphold. It's the bedrock of a free and open society, which is why totalitarian governments move so quickly to quash freedom of speech and expression. Those who abuse power know the truth, that freedom is empowering.

There is no exclusivity to abuse of power. Last year, Democrats didn't like the Tea Party using such tactics such as video recording a congressional Town Hall meeting; this time outside of Cincinnati, it was a Republican targeting Progressives employing the same strategy. The label of liberal or conservative, Tea Party or Progressive, doesn't matter when the central issue becomes an abuse of the power granted these public servants by the very Constitution they swear to uphold. That covers those elected such as Steve Chabot, as well as those appointed such as the police officer caught on tape openly abusing the U.S. Bill of Rights.

As long as we keep silent on such issues -- not only as members of the media but also as fellow citizens -- we encourage such abuses, and embolden those who would impose their version of orderly dialogue on a system the founding fathers clearly envisioned as a sometimes messy but always necessary component of democracy. Too many of our forefathers spilled their blood to have it any other way.

When Chabot holds his next meeting, folks asking personal questions will be asked to come forward after the public meeting to share their details. It's a good, common sense approach that a more constitutionally-aware adult would have reached before trampling over the rights of the people to exercise their public business in public.

Perhaps the oath of office should include a history lesson, too.

Feeling Missouri: Show Me

The debate on whether or not to release Osama bin Laden death photos and videos of his at-sea funeral turns the White House white-hot, as voices ranging from his security team to loud public voices urge President Obama to keep the images secure.

Read on for more but warning: images contained in this post are graphic and upsetting.

Update 1:30 p.m. May 4: President Obama tells "60 Minutes" he will not release photographs of Osama bin Laden's body.

Most of the arguments against release seem to turn on good taste, whether it's responsible journalism, the potential to inflame and even a barometer of the President's call to release his birth certificate to please the conspiracy theorists.

I'm feeling a bit Missouri in all this. Show me. Let me decide if I want to see and whether I believe. The price of democracy and the telling of history as-it-happens is too high to shroud in good taste.

There's serious precedent involved.

Within the past decade, this same government (regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a hallmark of the U.S. system of democracy is our government does change -- just the faces) gave our critics and enemies plenty to inflame. The Abu Ghraib images showing torture of prisoners in one of Iraq's most notorious prisons -- at U.S. military hands -- was enough to spark protests across the globe. The images are, without question, troubling even though the graphic nature of the violence is clearly more psychological than physiological. There are even more graphic photographs from Abu Ghraib and all a simple Google image search away. Not as if you haven't seen them all before, either published by your local newspapers, on television, even used as props in congressional testimony. It was hard not to miss these photographs.

It's also a good time to remind ourselves of the graphic photos released of the bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay in July 2003. Here's the FoxNews coverage when the military released the photos. The Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC down under) noted U.S. military commanders at the time had few qualms on release, noting news organizations in the Middle East routinely published photos of slain U.S. servicemen, including the bodies of those mutilated.

Go back a generation, to the graphic photographs of the My Lai massacre.

For those under 50, this chapter in our Vietnam War history won't be fresh. For those over 50, the mention of Lt. William Calley will evoke memories of the lust for war gone horribly wrong, the desire to kill for victory so contradictory to our mission and cause. I found this photo on the website of London's Daily Mail, in a 2007 story detailing the March 16, 1968 slaughter of more than 500 people by U.S. forces. Odds are this photograph won't come as a surprise; we saw it at the time. It still stands as one of the most horrific war crimes of a war seemingly full of atrocities. Let's not also forget one of the more enduring images from the Vietnam War: a Vietnamese army officer, in plain clothes, shooting a man in the head, the moment captured in Pulitzer Prize flash memory. The brutality of one man versus one man.

Go back to the generation of our grandparents.

Television wasn't in every household, and the descriptions of what Allied troops found in the Nazi concentration camps delivered by radio, newspaper and newsreel seemed unbelievable. Talk with anyone who's visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. for the tiniest sense of what it feels like, passing by piles of clothes. Ask someone who's been to the remains Auschwitz, or Birkenau, or Dachau, or Treblinka to get their first hand account of how walking calm fields today carries with it the sense of dread and sadness of the death camps -- a feeling that the ghosts of millions slaughtered by madness still remain so we still remember. Even with the newsreels, accounts and photographs there are still millions around the world who refuse to acknowledge. Despite the proof to the contrary. The photo above shows the crematorium at Weimar, Germany where thousands were disposed of before members of the 3rd U.S. Army liberated the camp in April 1945.

Then there's the crime Osama bin Laden was wanted for.

Fast forward to that bright September morning in 2001 when jets carrying everyday passengers became flying bombs on his order. You certainly can't forget those images; we saw them again, the planes flying into the World Trade Center. That day we saw the pictures and video of people leaping to the death rather than being burned alive. The images of a gaping, smoking hole in the Pentagon just across the river from the White House and U.S. Capitol. The furrow and spilled earth in a grassy field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania and the phone calls made by passengers-turned-heroes to stop yet another flying bomb from hitting Washington.

All these images are graphic and disturbing. So many more also exist in newspapers, books, video archives, the Internet -- as well as the personal testimony from those days of hatred and tragedy, and remembrances from the survivors, are emotional. They are still ugly, raw reminders of the inhumanity men, women and children face from zealots of all stripes who forget their own humanity.

Is there a blood lust in wanting to see the body of Osama bin Laden? Anymore than showing the world the images above, because the ugliness of mankind at its worst can be so unbelievable that it requires us to see for ourselves? Was there blood lust in wanting proof Hitler was dead?

Crime shows on TV routinely show the death photos of John Dillinger, or mob bosses gunned down in barbershops and outside steakhouses, as a matter of routine. We are a society where we'll pay eight bucks to watch movies where actors playing victims perish in spectacular Hollywood fashion. We are also a society where seeing the bloated legacy left behind when Rev. Jim Jones ordered hundreds of followers to swallow poison accompanied the graphic film of his followers also shooting to death a U.S. Congressman and 917 others in Jonestown. We are a society where the Zapruder film showing the murder of an American president is routinely viewed online and on television every November 22nd. We are a nation that sees video of a deranged man shooting an American president outside a Washington hotel just twenty years ago.

My friends from Missouri are proud to say they're from the "Show Me State." Eyewitness evidence matters, from the disturbing images above to today's world of photos, videos and audio.

Why show bin Laden's body and burial? Why were accounts of the hanging of Saddam Hussein needed? Why is it necessary to remind ourselves of the victims of fanaticism, such as those who beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl in February 2002? Should I post an image of that crime, to remind us that bin Laden's henchman Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- now at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in detention -- claimed he personally cut off Pearl's head for the world to see?

I'm feeling Missouri today not because I don't believe, but because it's important not to forget. And turning our eyes away from the unthinkable misses the point: these are images that ought to be seared into our memories, lest we be afraid of the emotions that should rightfully work to keep us from allowing such acts to be played out again and again.

Wanna See A Dead Body?

That seems to be the question of the day: should the Obama Administration release the photographs and/or videos from the daring raid Sunday that bagged Osama bin Laden?

This type of discussion plays out in local newsrooms all across the nation these days, as well as in the circles of the digital media world where non-traditional thought has the same First Amendment power as traditional newspaper, television and radio outlets.

Should you see the goods on Osama bin Laden, determining for yourself if that is indeed his body depicted -- or his body in the shroud buried at sea? Should the White House describe the graphic evidence, already depicted as "gruesome" by Mr. Obama's press secretary, and leave it at that?

We live in a world today of conspiracy theorists; everybody is from Missouri, the "Show Me State." We have plenty of reason to doubt the official line, after being fed weapons of mass destruction, closed-door meetings carving up large segments of the economy, secret talks protecting some businesses but not others, and even a Congress that votes on reforming a sixth of the nation's economy without knowing what's in the bill.

Our system of open government and access to records, for the most part, makes this a no-brainer. Public business means documents are open to the public. But there are notable exceptions: national security is one, protecting health information is another we may be personally familiar with when signing all those HIPAA documents with our doctors. Home addresses of police officers, for example, are routinely shielded to protect local cops from all-too-easy retribution from criminals. Court documents relating to juvenile cases are usually off-limits.

In the case of Osama bin Laden's death photos and video, however, the argument isn't necessarily national security -- unless you accept the argument it puts Americans at risk to inflame a segment of the world already passionate about doing us violence. Mr. bin Laden's HIPAA rights have expired, his address (so close to Pakistan's military university) is already known and he was shielded by a wife, not a juvenile. This is an argument about good taste, whether we are adult enough and if the conspiracy beast must be fed.

Not an easy call to make. Add to the mix the general feeling the "mainstream media" would exercise some caution in broadcasting or publishing graphic material against the wide-open world of the web where anything goes -- and then some. The White House may have felt comfortable providing photos to the New York Times and ABC News in the past, but today's media environment lies on the shoulders of more people than the usual cast of editors and news directors.

I recall seeing pictures of Michael Jackson in-state; if photos of the body of the King of Pop were fair game for publishing, why not the King of Terrorists?

- - -

These past five days have provided a flurry of activity in the news business, starting with the horrific outbreak of tornadoes that left Alabama and five other states to pick up the pieces of homes and comfort the families of the dead. It featured the marriage of two young people in an elaborate ceremony watched by an estimated 1.7 billion people worldwide. It culminated in the extraordinary late Sunday night announcement by President Obama that we had finally "got him."

Just about the entire U.S. "big news" organization plans to start the week focused on getting high-priced talent to London for the entertainment event of the year. I know some will argue the wedding of Kate and William was history, but please -- royals often marry without the non-stop news cycle of cute features news groups were filling time with before storms blew apart their news budgets.

I found the decision by NBC's Brian Williams and Steve Capus (shown at left during the 2010 RTDNF First Amendment Dinner in Washington) one of the most laudable; Williams in particular knows where the story is, what his audience expects and what his responsibilities demand as a network news anchor. He and Capus decided, upon Williams' arrival in London, to immediately turn around and fly back to the U.S. because of what just blew through the South. Too much damage, too many dead, 2010's Katrina in the making. It was the right call, and also positioned NBC to have it's top anchor talent at least in this country on Sunday night when the biggest story from the War on Terror since September 11th, 2001 broke in time to interrupt Celebrity Apprentice.

From CNN we expect all-out; Sunday night into Monday morning we got the same from NBC, turning it's coverage over to MSNBC when broadcast affiliates split away for their local news or rerun programming at midnight. On the radio, ABC Newsradio and CBS News Radio provided amazing coverage of the raid, the conjecture, and the spontaneous reaction that spread from Washington and New York to cities and college campus celebrations across the nation.

The network coverage of the bin Laden story -- Operation Geronimo -- was also met on the local level by local professionals in time of crisis in Alabama and the other southern states hit by the great twisters of 2011. Stations in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa represented many, many others in using all their resources -- and then some -- to give millions without power an open communications lifeline to the information they needed to survive the night and days ahead. Where to find water, food, shelter, clothing -- and even where to try and find loved ones still among the missing. Some of these folks on the radio did so despite their own homes reduced to rubble by 200 mile-per-hour funnel clouds scrubbing the landscape. They did so out of responsibility to their community, because they are the best our profession offers.

- - -

I think about the role the traditional media plays in these stories, especially when seeing the predictable "I saw it on Twitter first" stories. Sure social media is more nimble; it's the direct outlet of the people. New media isn't new anymore, and the power of sharing news and views using Facebook, Twitter, and texting shouldn't surprise anyone. But when crisis hit with the winds, radio turned out to be the life-saver and information tool for the masses desperate for glimmers of hope and news. When a couple of thirty-somethings tied the knot, the world's eyes were glued to screens -- television and data terminals -- so they could share in the experience. When the world learned a man depicted as "Public Enemy No. 1" by this country met justice at the hands of our Navy SEAL team, there were plenty of platforms going around to learn more.

Whether you learned from Twitter, television, the web, or a smartphone, it really doesn't matter who says they had it first. It matters where you heard it, saw it, or read it first. The marvel of today's media isn't how one technology replaces another, it's how so many choices now exist and the power we all hold in determining what is or isn't credible. Followers on Twitter can be expected to turn on the TV to see for themselves; listeners on the radio can be expected to go to Facebook to see what their friends think of what's happening; readers of newspapers can be expected to go to the web to satisfy their own cravings for more.

What remains constant is the need for competent reporting, reliable analysis and responsible coverage produced by the human beings at the other end of the keyboard, video camera, microphone or printing press. It's still the human element that makes those waves of electrons news for the rest of us to digest, and believe or not.

I believe, when we look back, this will be a golden age of the power of communication.

I'm able to read Brian Williams explaining on his blog why he skipped the royal wedding thanks to a Facebook post by my friend Nikki Burdine of WLEX in Kentucky at the same time I'm listening and watching the wedding on the radio, web and television during my shift of news anchoring the latest on the southern tornado damages just days before the news of the demise of the man who ordered the 9/11 attacks spilled over into the evening of slack-jawed Sunday night television watching.

It's golden because I have choices, and am empowered to use them as I see fit. The real power of the First Amendment isn't found underneath transmission towers or underneath printing presses -- it's found in everyday decisions by citizens like you and me making up our minds on what we choose to believe.

Even when it may be in bad taste.

Another "Dear John" By Proxy

Updated 5:05 p.m.: Governor Kasich's office has reversed the policy and will allow electronic reporting of the budget briefing noted below.

This is still a very important issue, especially as Ohio and the rest of the nation observe "Sunshine Week" this week to spotlight open government and transparency by those who do the people's business.

This issue remains just as important now.

Earlier this year I penned an open letter to Karen Kasich, Governor John Kasich's wife, pertaining to the Kelley Williams-Bolar case. Now it's "Dear Rob" to Rob Nichols, Governor Kasich's press secretary, asking why in the world you would pound reports at the capitol back to the Stone Age?


The Stone Age being the era when things with batteries and power cords were in short supply; in fact, they weren't in ANY supply.

Maybe the Kasich Administration is just hopelessly romantic, pining for more wistful days when reporters came out of "The Front Page" mold -- Hildy screaming for the copy desk, pushing back his Fedora at the same time the copy editor was pushing back his green-shade cap.


Ah, the good old days...if this were the 1950's, Don Draper would be so proud. Unfortunately, it's 2011.

Word from Columbus today is the decision to hold a traditional media briefing on the state budget proposal going to the General Assembly tomorrow -- you know, the one where we learn how Ohio will deal with a projected eight billion dollar shortfall -- won't allow recorders or cameras.

My letter to Rob:

Rob, I'm writing with concern over reports I'm hearing that the Governor's traditional sit-down briefing with the Capitol Press Corps this year -- specifically tomorrow after he presents to the General Assembly -- will be "pen and pad" only and will exclude mic and camera coverage.

Can this be true? Have we advanced media relations in the new millennium to exclude the tools of the journalists' trade anything requiring a power cord and battery? What's next -- imposing rules on print reporters that any coverage be limited to a mimeograph machine?

Although my broadcast operation is 112 miles from the state capitol building, we follow the policy discussion and issues from Columbus both online and through the statewide broadcasts of the Ohio News Network, Ohio Government Television and of course Ohio Public Radio and Television. So do our listeners. To deny electronic journalists the ability to use the very tools of electronic journalism in coverage of the most important budget issue in Ohio's recent history is to deny the citizens of Ohio the ability to weigh the observations and positions of Governor Kasich as precisely the time when they need to see and hear him the most. It is unconscionable to insist broadcast and Internet members of the statehouse news gathering process operate as they did fifty years ago.

If this policy is aimed at forcing electronic media to provide live coverage of the Governor's Town Hall meeting this evening, such policy is a cynical manipulation of the open government process and transparency past Administrations have traditionally followed. It paints this decision as political in nature, and not a genuine opportunity to engage in open and honest dialogue with the citizens of Ohio.

Pragmatically, this decision makes an "on the record" conversation anything but on the record. Without the normal tools available, even print reporters would be forced to leave behind the small recorders they may use to make sure the quotes and comments of Governor Kasich and members of the Administration are accurate and within context.

I respectfully request your reconsideration of this policy. With the significant challenges our elected representatives, including Governor Kasich, must deal with at this critical time in Ohio's history this is a direction away from accountable and transparent government.

- - -

In the Information Age we swing back to using papyrus and charcoal. Perhaps the representatives from the Associated Press, Columbus Dispatch, Akron Beacon Journal, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cincinnati Enquirer and Dayton Daily News would be able to pool their supply of quill and ink as to set an example?

Honestly, with all the spin accompanying the need to transform the way Ohio does business, is this really the direction the Administration needs to set course on when dealing with the statehouse media?

A supporter might say this is all designed to make Ohio's television, radio and web news operations belly up to the Governor's Town Hall meeting tomorrow night where he explains his budget to his bosses -- the taxpayers. Somehow I don't imagine local TV stations blanking out of the night's Doppler 15,000 weathercast to make way for the Governor's webcast. It's a silly, manipulative and cynical view of presenting an important public debate to...well, the public.

Politically and from a public relations standpoint, it makes little sense. By hog-tying television, radio, and even print reporters posting online from using the tools of today's media trade during his briefing, Governor Kasich sets the stage for his very vocal opposition to use those same tools in getting their message out over his. It's a strategy that begs for an aggressive response from the loyal opposition; pragmatically it gives Democrats and those who will fight the Governor's budget proposal the advantage in getting their spin out before voters have had a chance to hear Kasich's voice.

This isn't the first time the Governor's Office has stumbled in putting muscle behind it's talk of transparency and open debate. This latest example, as with some of the most recent, just don't make sense other than to consider it more an expression of ego than smart politics. With so many other weightier fish to fry, why pick a fight with those who's job it is to act as the eyes and ears of the very citizens you are trying to get on your side?

Swearing Over Swearing In

Update 3:45 p.m. The Governor-elect will now allow folks "in the house" for the ceremony. I'm told his staff was working on this before the yelping started Tuesday, but it sure makes the media feel like it won one...

All my friends in the media are having a conniption (meaning: tantrum) over Governor-elect John Kasich's desire to keep his private home private, even as he's sworn in with a midnight technicality ceremony. My first question is: why is his house now considered public? This really isn't about the First Amendment or government transparency. It's about politics, silly

Kasich's decision to remain at home in a Columbus suburb -- providing stability for his family while he works his "day job" in the Governor's office -- tosses a monkey wrench of sorts in the land of government transparency.

Is this really at the same level as the swearing-in of LBJ with widow Jackie Kennedy by his side, at left, with the slain JFK in the hold below?

Prior Governors who called the Mansion home lived in a building owned by the state; the expenses of running the place, records of phone calls, all considered the people's business and therefore open to examination by friend and foe alike. That's the price one pays for serving their fellow citizens.

But Kasich's decision to stay at home and use the Bexley Governor's Residence for ceremonial purposes adds a wrinkle to how the people's business gets done. When he's living in his house, it's not the "people's house" but his private residence where his family lives. I think most of us, when pressed, would sympathize with his desire to offer as normal a life as possible for his family.

Which brings us to being sworn in as Governor at midnight, a largely technical exercise ahead of the more ceremonial inaugural bash set for January 10th in Columbus. It's to legally allow Kasich to act as Governor in the event of an emergency before the public show.

We're told there's plenty of precedent in modern Ohio political history to have the moment captured on film. At least that's the argument offered by the Associated Press and other journalism organizations, equating coverage of the act as a show of transparency in government. They want to be there to capture the moment, and make a good argument it is part of the people's business and should be open press.

But this isn't taking place in a state-owned building; it's in someone's personal, private residence. If "a man's home is his castle" is a dictum you embrace, then it stands to reason the homeowner decides who to admit to their home and is not bound to do so because that's the way others have done so in the past. I doubt many of us would consider giving up the privacy of our own homes as a price to be paid for serving our fellow citizens and neighbors. The Kasich home is still the Kasich home, regardless of what he does for a living, so long as the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

And no, just because he's Governor doesn't mean we're footing the bill for his family's home. That would be like saying your employer has a right to inspect and enter your house on demand.

This "midnight swearing ceremony" may be part of history, but other public officials here and across the country have similar ceremonies without having a news photographer on hand. Even when new statehouse lawmakers were sworn in this week, I doubt every newspaper was lined up to have photos of the official event. Fact is, the candidates themselves usually send the media a photo. It's no different than life behind the curtain at the White House; it's not always an AP photographer snapping history. Some of the most iconic photos of our Presidents are taken by the official White House photographer, a surrogate for the press corps.

I'm not inclined to buy in to the outcry over transparency for a ceremony taking part in Kasich's private residence, and think it highlights for every potential public servant a good reason to think twice before putting their name on a ballot. A balance should be struck, and in this particular case a technical ceremony in an official's private home at midnight doesn't exactly rise as a litmus test of transparency for me.

That said, there are compelling reasons why the Governor-elect and his advisors should heed the protest letters likely to come from media and critics alike. Those reasons aren't in defense of open government; they are offered here because of the politics.

Governor Kasich, you have far more on your agenda than wasting time fighting over this. The most important times in any politician's career are those moments building support to get elected, and then the message you send on your first steps in office. What you will be doing in Columbus over the next four -- or eight -- years begins with how you project your leadership these next few weeks.

Your fellow citizens are far more concerned with how you intend to plug up to a $10 billion dollar shortfall -- that's $10,000,000,000.00, approximately $909 and change for every man, woman and child in Ohio -- in the budget without raising our taxes or cutting off our services. We're far more interested in the reforms you and your team will try to push through the Legislature while every Tom, Dick and Harry special interest squeals like a stuck pig and pulls out all the stops to protect their way of life. It matters more to Ohio how you get us and our neighbors working again, with jobs that make a difference to our community and provide a real future for our families without packing up the moving van and heading to Texas.

It starts with being on the up-and-up and building trust. Yes, it's your house. Yes, the histrionics from both sides over whether they'll get a picture of you swearing the oath before going to bed at midnight seems silly. But this is politics and the media, both of which you are all-to-familiar with.

Use some common sense: let the AP or a pool photographer enjoy a brief moment of hospitality in your home to take a photo for posterity. If you absolutely protect the privacy of your own home (I'm with you on that one, by the way) see if the local city hall or library if they mind you using their building to be sworn in at midnight. Get the Ohio State University's official photographer to snap away and send the images to the media. It was good enough for John F. Kennedy; it should be good enough for John R. Kasich.

You accepted the transition of private citizen to public leader when you filed the papers to run for Governor. Leadership is knowing when to pick a fight, and this small potatoes isn't worth the time, energy and political capital as you prepare to undertake the hardest job in Ohio.

VIDEO Marcellus Alexander: Thinking First

Next Thursday, March 4th, we at RTDNF will be honoring five individuals for their hard work, dedication and advocacy of the First Amendment.

I wonder sometimes if this is the right we take for granted. It tells the government they have no right to control what we think or say (for the most part: yelling fire in the crowded theater aside) and opens up the workings of the people's business in such a fashion as to actually encourage the people to see how things work.

Among those we're honoring is Marcellus Alexander, vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters for television and president of the NABEF, the educational foundation of the NAB. Marcellus comes to the party with an impressive resume, including stints as a station manager in Baltimore and Philadelphia where the theoretical issues surrounding free speech actually play out in the real world. We sat down earlier this month...

First Amendment Chat: Barbara Cochran

During a recent visit to Washington, I had the opportunity to sit down with RTDNA President Emeritus Barbara Cochran and talk about the First Amendment.

Barbara's an Akron native -- proud grad of Buchtel High School and Swenson's fan to this day -- but what she has to say about the First Amendment as a tool for citizens, not just the media. It hits home at a time when there's serious debate on what the government should do to bail out journalism, and a drive in some circles to make free speech not-so-free.

The Radio Television Digital News Foundation (RTDNF) is honoring Cochran; NAB's Marcellus Alexander; CBS Radio's Harvey Nagler; ABC News' David Westin and NBC's Brian Williams March 4th in Washington at our 20th Annual First Amendment Awards celebration.

Isn't Free Speech Wonderful?

All the gum-flapping over the Obama White House asking supporters of the President's healthcare plans to "rat out" (the phrase used if you oppose) or "simply report myths" (if you are in favor) point out one thing: it's still great to wrap ourselves in the First Amendment.

The cynics targeting Obamacare charge even asking people to "inform" on those with opposing views -- under the edict to report false statements so they can be dealt with -- conjures up memories of secret police behind the Iron Curtain, getting even the kids to report on their parents.

On the other side, the cynics targeting any questioning of Obamacare charge even asking those questions or offering a passionate objection is little more than Nazi-era storm trooper tactics designed to build enemy lists.

Lost to both sides: by even having this discussion, and by extension painting the other side in the most over-exaggerated prose, Americans continue to prove just what is great about America. We have the freedoms to call those in power to account not just for what they do, but what we think they want to do. The First Amendment gives us that right, and it is the ultimate equalizer keeping power with the people.

Speaker Pelosi and her oh-so-serious-it-hurts-listening band of spin doctors would have us believe democracy is being taken over by the mob; Rush Limbaugh and his equally too-serious-to-want-to-invite-to-my-dinner-table band believe we are on the cusp of becoming Maoist China or, worse yet, East Germany.

Both sides have enough little truth to feed their fears to spark a conflagration among a public looking for leadership but instead settling for manipulation. Is it really a wonder most of the public mentally checks out of these beltway brawls?

It's gotten so bad passionate people who disagree are now portrayed as disruptive enough to force member of Congress to hide from their constituents, an excuse to not talk about why they vote the way they do or show their faces in so-called "Town Hall" meetings that traditionally were little more than photo ops to begin with. Now that we have something of substance to openly discuss with the folks writing the checks, all of a sudden the masters of the presentation are afraid to present.

Suggestion: send flag@WhiteHouse.gov an email EVERY time you see a posting, hear a voice in opposition or see a talking head straying from the party line. I mean EVERY time -- include CNN, MSNBC, Fox, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, even this blog -- to the point where it becomes apparent we appreciate the wide diversity of opinion on this issue. Better yet, add the National Republican Committee to the list: their website is being revamped and while they want you to tell them how you like the new look I'm sure they'd love to hear what you think on other issues. The national Democrat Committee wants to know what you think on the issues, too. You'll also be surprised just how similar the two sites look -- right down to making sure "give us money" is featured prominently.

To our elected representatives enjoying some time back home from the sauna of democracy in August, man up -- aimed at LaTourette, Ryan, Space and Boccieri. Betty Sutton should woman up. You weren't elected to sit in comfort and make decisions based only on the words of the party bosses, lobbyists you allow in your office, or union and industry big-shots back home.

These folks back home who want to hear from you, talk with you and even yell at you are more important that Obama, Pelosi, Limbaugh, Gingrich and the rest of the beltway bunch. These people are your bosses.

Earn your pay. Talk to the people. Listen to what they have to say and then vote your conscience. Then accept what comes next -- good with the bad. Just end the whining about having to put up with either side exercising this little thing called free speech so many Americans fought so hard for.

When Comments Attack

There are plenty of headaches for media companies large and small; the economy certainly ranks as number one, with a close number two figuring how to ride out the wave of seismic changes hitting the journalism and communications landscape. But the one that may provide the biggest heartburn strikes directly at the First Amendment.

I like to point out there's a reason why freedom of speech is the First amendment; after all, the freedom to petition for redress of our grievances, assemble with others of like-mind, even the particular (or peculiar) way we choose to worship all stem from what many Americans take for granted.

This right of expressing our opinion runs deep in the American psyche, even if most Americans would be hard-pressed to actually point out what most of our constitutionally-protected rights actually are.

Which brings us to commenting features on the web.

This feature of letting it fly is nothing new to newspapers, but they've kept it in check by having an editorial page editor sift through letters to decide which were worthy of jumping through the journalistic salmon ladder we call publishing. Some might even be good enough to warrant treatment as a column, although that was still under the control of the editor. That's the way Op/Ed pages in newspapers still work, even today.

Talk radio (and our fresh-faced cousins, talk TV) follow in a similar vein. When you listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or even Howie, your couple minutes of airtime can depend on whether a producer thinks you are worthy or even something arbitrary such as being caller number four when there's only time left for three.

The web is different.

We expect our thoughts to show, immediately, after clicking. Once sent, never recalled. The heat of the moment laid bare, which explains how so many comments are often rude, insensitive, unkind and disrespectful. The send button isn't much of a recall device.

On recent posts to AkronNewsNow stories, especially those dealing with crime and mayoral recalls, we've been treated to occasional glimpses of passionate thought but that also comes with plenty of bile. Some comments, hiding behind the ease of a screen name, call others names they would never use face-to-face.

Calling out someone who has a different opinion as an "idiot" is tame; we've seen some suggest that people suffering from some kind of impairment should be required to wear dog collars and be restrained on leashes. Readers have seen some wish physical harm, even rape, on those targets of their disdain.

We try to remove those posts as quickly as possible because we believe personal attacks, especially those advocating physical harm, have no place on this site. It's no different than considering the discussion you would allow around your dinner table, or in the backyard with a house full of summer barbecue guests: would you express yourself so openly if engaged in a debate with someone just as passionate sitting across from you?

Disagreement over ideas is one thing, but hate disguised as indigestible discourse is another.

FREE SPEECH: Where Do You Stand?

One of the aftermath issues following the Success Academy shootings in Cleveland is a drill just about every newsroom and journalist goes through -- or should go through.

WKYC's Eric Mansfield blogged about the student who reaped rewards from the checkbook journalists paying for his homemade video shot inside the classroom while a 14-year old fellow student shot outside the classroom, wounding four before taking his own life. A national program shelled out two grand without blinking, Eric reports, and local news shops followed suit (bidding remained in the hundreds) once word got out. WKYC did not join the tragedy auction but did air the video when NBC made it available to network affiliates.

Was it wrong for the student, and the student's mother, do quickly jump on the profit wagon with the blood of his fellow students and teachers still fresh on the hallway floors?

It is not unusual for networks, newspapers or magazines to pay for content; after all, those out-of-town but appearing in-studio guests on programs such as CNN's Larry King and Glenn Beck, or MSNBC's Hard Ball, NBC's Today Show, ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's Morning Show, Fox & Friends -- most of the "real people", non-professional guests don't pay their own way to fly to New York, Washington, or Atlanta and then pop for a night's hotel stay for the pure joy of being on TV. In-studio means someone foots the bill for travel, and then some.

There's a fine line in television between the entertainment division programs and the news division programs; viewers usually can't tell the difference between the hard-driving CNN Showbiz Today or Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood, even as they air on the "news" channel or immediately following a news program. We broadcasters do a pretty good job of making that line fuzzy, and it isn't a stretch to note the public has better things to do with their time than grow sophisticated to easily recognize the difference.

Phil Trexler of the Akron Beacon Journal noted on Friday's NewsNight Akron program it is common practice for the paper to pay "stringer fees", usually a nominal amount. We practice the same policy with stringers and freelancers both in broadcast on WAKR and online on AkronNewsNow with some sports reporters, mostly Jeff Brewer who contributes coverage from pro teams as well as features on high school sports. Jeff is also a blogger on Suburban League athletics).

The newspaper/magazine equivalent to the networks is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for that "shot" of Brittney dropping her child on the sidewalk coming out of Starbucks, or Lindsay stumbling out of a nightclub after rehab. Those photos reap huge rewards just as the video does because the public wants to see those images, despite protests of disgust. In the business, it's the "what's under the sheet?" question: driving past a car wreck, everyone looks to see even though they know it won't be pretty. It isn't one of our finest traits, but it is what it is.

Who's wrong -- the video shooter or the TV/radio/newspaper/website paying for the media?

I find it hard to condemn the young man who shot the Success Academy video or his mother; they had a product in demand and customers willing to pay for it. The responsibility on what we as journalists air, post or publish isn't with the "user generated users" or freelancers providing the content, it is ours as traditional media (newspapers, magazine, radio, TV) or "new" media (Internet) since we weild the editorial decision on what content we believe our respective audiences want.

That decision is complicated and in today's fragmented media world not just one with journalism ethics attached; the differences in acceptance by the wider media audience measured in ratings points, circulation or unique visitor page views places huge economic considerations on those decisions. Also consider the First Amendment provides for very little in the form of regulation (yelling "fire" in crowded theaters, personal health privacy and espionage secrets excepted) for a very good reason: the Founding Fathers opted to put the power in the hands of the people, and not someone deciding for us what we would see and hear.

The market reality is: if viewers, readers and listeners have such widespread revulsion and are repulsed by these images and sounds those airing, publishing or posting the material won't make a living. When most viewers, readers and listeners demand and expect this material those responsible for the editorial decisions must and will weigh the economic consequences along with their best journalistic judgment, citizen or professional.

In our version of democracy, freedom of speech isn't bound by the limits of good taste or family-appropriate values. That decision is left to us, as it should be: I'd rather have a society openly debating excess rather than authority silencing speech.