SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a follow-up to the recent story here about the Tennessee Bill to Require Free Speech on Campus an NPR reporter has been fired in response to an unflattering story due to pressure by legislators on the University of Tennessee.
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga fired a reporter this week at WUTC, the National Public Radio affiliate, after local lawmakers complained about how she reported on a state transgender bathroom bill.
Jacqui Helbert, 32, reported and produced the story for WUTC, which followed a group of Cleveland High School students as they traveled to the state capital March 7 to meet with Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, and Rep. Kevin Brooks, R-Cleveland, about the legislation.
The story aired on WUTC March 9 and 13, and was posted on the station's website. After it was posted, the lawmakers said Helbert failed to properly identify herself as a reporter during the meetings.
Helbert maintains she acted within journalistic ethics as she reported the story, and she never concealed her intentions or bulky radio equipment. She did not verbally identify herself as a journalist.
"It was glaringly obvious who I was," Helbert said, adding that her NPR press pass hung around her neck while at the capitol.
Helbert said she was wearing headphones and pointing a 22-inch large fuzzy microphone at the lawmakers as they spoke during the meeting.
Archive of the censored story is here.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:14PM (6 children)
Update: WUTC claims she was fired for violating NPR standards. NPR says/a. pulling the story also violated NPR standards. [nooga.com]
One hilarious thing about this story is that the two legislators that got her fired are pissed for opposite reasons - one of them is unhappy that he was revealed to be a massive asshole (made some kids cry for telling them they are hogwash) and the other is unhappy that he was revealed to not be as big of asshole as he wants his constituents to think he is (said the bill was a waste of time trying to fix a problem that didn't exist).
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:28PM
Tennessee is yet another case where strong local adherence to exactly one side of the national political debate has poisoned the state government to be a mess of hyper-partisans and/or whatever dimwit has the right letter after their name.
While this isn't a purely neutral problem where both sides are equally bad, just about any state where it happens consistently for either side is some kinda mess of corruption and power brokering.
I'm by no means a centrist, but a lack of serious competition for districts is a poison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:06PM (3 children)
Fake news detected.
That said, the fact that she was wearing press credentials and was holding a 14-inch-long microphone that she moved around as people spoke would be obvious signs to any public officials that they were being recorded—most likely for some type of public posting.
So is the 18-inch-long microphone fuzzy or not? I mean, how can I believe facts that disagree about whether the 20-inch-long microphone was fuzzy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:06PM
I shave mine.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:52PM
I have the fuzziest microphone. It has the best fuzz.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @08:45AM
I feel like I am sharing a ``CORN-DOG'' with NIKITA KHRUSCHEV ...
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:04AM
According to that article it is actually the UTC university officials, not WUTC news staff, that both ordered the reporter's termination and ordered the removal of the story. Obviously the lawmakers threatened to cut off funds to the university, and the weak-spined university officials thought it was a great idea to interfere with the functioning of WUTC in response to government blackmail threats, even though there was actually nothing about the story that should have qualified it for removal and suppression, and the journalist failing to shout "I'M A JOURNALIST FOR WUTC AND I'LL BE BROADCASTING ANY REMARKS YOU MAKE THAT I'M RECORDING WITH MY GIANT MICROPHONE THAT I'M POINTING RIGHT AT YOUR FACE RIGHT NOW," was not a fireable offense (according to the station's own editors). Talk about Streisand Effect.
People spend a lot of time screaming about government censorship when there is nothing of the sort actually going on. Well, this is one case where it would only be one very short hop to make this ACTUAL government censorship of the free press. It comes up just shy of actual censorship, which would require the legislators directly ordering the termination or arrest of the journalist in question, in clear violation of the 1st Amendment. But this sure as hell qualifies as "interfering" with press freedom and puts in question the independence and integrity of the WUTC station.
Anyone who finds the free press important should find this quite disturbing. Unless you're a Trumpite, in which case everything but Breitbart is "fake news" and there's nothing to see here, move along, citizen. Pravda!
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:44PM
Hateful garbage which chooses one scientific aspect over another! Or worse, chooses some ideas passed down from ignorant jerks.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:55PM (6 children)
I bet there are a lot of journalists out there who think that just because you're holding a big microphone and wearing something around your neck doesn't make you a journalist. Over time I've seen the lines blur between who/what is a journalist and who/what is not. However a mic and piece of paper around your neck never seems to be considered as part of the criteria. (I am assuming that most people would not be able to read the pass. Those that could should have known...)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:14PM (2 children)
Maybe it's a bit much to expect everyone to know the person is a journalist, but you'd think common sense would kick in when you have reason to suspect they're recording you.
It cracks me up how desperate all these government guys are to keep anyone from recording them, because somehow every time they get recorded they come off as huge assholes. Let's stop and think about this for a second...
.
To mangle a metaphor, don't piss on my leg and tell me your stream is "transparency" ;)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:40PM (1 child)
no, in effect, everyone *is* a 'journalist', in that we ALL have the right and power to observe (and report) on public affairs/events; those rights and protections DO NOT simply and only adhere to professional media whores (as much as Empire would like to make that so)...
*HOWEVER*, as individuals, we obviously do not have the time/resources to observe ALL the public meetings, legislative sessions, regulatory commissions, ambulance chasing, etc; so we have professional journalists as our proxies...
as far as i am concerned, journalists are a SUBSET of regular citizens, NOT a 'superset'...
we ALL have those rights, but as a practical matter, they are mostly invested in those who do the actual reporting FOR US...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:32PM
Good points. Accountability would be our representatives knowing they were being constantly recorded (and the recordings weren't going to be "accidentally misplaced" :P) and that wasn't going to change. Maybe, wonder of wonders, we'd see a bit of behavioral change.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:23PM (2 children)
Rule #1: Someone's recording.
Rule #2: Every microphone is working.
Rule #3: Everything recorded may be broadcast, and everything will be indexed and searched later.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:18AM (1 child)
Rule #4: If you avoid being a dick, whether or not anybody is recording you, you won't have to worry about whether somebody is recording you.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:07AM
Yeah, tell that all the people the Pizzagate mob are after.
Turns out that no matter how innocuous you might be, people will employ motivated reasoning to justify hating you.
Cardinal Richelieu was a prophet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:26PM (4 children)
Public servants should have no expectation of privacy in the course of their duties. Any of the kiddos could have recorded audio of the meeting and gotten away with it as long as they were not violating any wiretap laws, which could probably be challenged and overturned in the courts anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:12PM (2 children)
That's true. But journalist ethics go above and beyond what's legal because "gotcha" journalism is not neutral reporting of the facts, it can easily become manipulative so legit reporters try to stay as far away from that line as they can. Investigative journalism is different, but that's not what this story is about.
Secret recordings by any of the kids would not pass muster for anything but background documentation. The standard way to handle a secret recording would be to contact the person recorded and ask them to either agree to publishing the audio or to give an on-the-record statement.
She definitely should have been reprimanded for failing to explicitly identify herself.
But it was literally her first field report ever. Firing her was way out of proportion to the offense.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:07AM (1 child)
Yeah, it's not as if a 22 inch microphone, headset, and audio gear could possibly tip someone off to the chance they would be recorded. Certainly the NPR press pass around her neck wouldn't inspire the thought that it might be broadcast at some point.
It's hard to imagine anything about the recording being secret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:18AM
Its not about it being secret, its about following established norms and staying as far away from the line as possible.
Yes he's a dummy for not realizing what was plainly obvious.
But she did not live up to the expectations of quality set by her employer.
Firing her is out of line, but she did make a serious mistake. A rookie mistake, but a serious one nonetheless.
NPR is not a shitrag like breitbart after all.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:41PM
This came up every now and then when I worked in a call center. Good news. Tennessee is a one party [dmlp.org] state. More info [rcfp.org].
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:16PM (11 children)
People are shocked to discover National Public Radio is a government agency and when an employee of it angers powerful people above them in the chain of command that they can be fired. Wow, this is bigger than Watergate, Iran Contra, Bengazi and Pussygate combined!
Just defund PBS and NPR and this problem is solved. The government has no business being in the fake news business in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:41PM
Yeah, all the fake news should be generated only by private corporations, shorn of all burdensome regulation, right J-Mo? Christ, you've gone full alt-tard. Pop a Valium and have a nap.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:47PM (2 children)
I was certainly shocked. Then I did some basic research and realized NPR isn't a government agency at all. Like PBS, it receives grant money from the federal government as well as donations from private citizens. The federal government supplies grant money for lots of things: "Anti-tobacco programs, pro-tobacco programs, and Israel!" to quote The Simpsons.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 28 2017, @10:54PM
Don't worry. Being completely factually incorrect won't stop a guy like our jmo!
when an employee of it angers powerful people above them in the chain of command that they can be fired.
Yeah, that never happens in a private company!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:40AM
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was "created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting [wikipedia.org]
Someone wrote in Wikipedia that NPR was created by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio#1970s [wikipedia.org]
However, the pages cited for the claim that NPR was created by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting don't exist:
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/history.html#history [npr.org]
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/history-timeline [cpb.org]
Did they never exist, or were they erased like the Apollo tapes?
NPR was incorporated in February 1970.
http://current.org/1970/02/npr-articles-of-incorporation-1970/ [current.org]
On its board of directors were four people, three of whom worked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting!
John P. Witherspoon was Director of Television Activities for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting one year later--February 1971.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED055405.pdf [ed.gov]
Ralph W. Nicholson
[...] entered government in 1960 as assistant postmaster general for installations and logistics, and served throughout the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. In 1969 he was named vice president and treasurer of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, where he worked until 1972.
-- http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-01-03/business/9501030040_1_mr-nicholson-postmaster-post-office [chicagotribune.com]
Bernard D. Mayes also worked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/10/24/bernard-mayes-kqed-fms-first-general-manager-dies-at-85/ [kqed.org]
He was the first chair of NPR.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/27/359434925/bernard-mayes-nprs-first-chairman-founder-of-suicide-hotline-dies [npr.org]
Richard D. Estell,
[manager] of radio broadcasting for Michigan State University. His appointment was approved by the MSU board of trustees. Estell succeeds Dr. Lawrence T. Frymire who resigned to become chief of the educational division of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C.
-- https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/31382254/ [newspapers.com]
The Michigan State University and the Federal Communications Commission are both governmental agencies.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:05PM
Fake commentary from jmorris.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:12PM (5 children)
People are shocked to discover National Public Radio is a government agency...
NPR is a 501(c)(3) organization. [npr.org]
Same as a certain other hive of scum and villainy. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:23AM
And while it is true that NPR receives some funding from the government, it's not even close to a majority. Indeed, there's reason to think that an NPR without any government support whatsoever might be a more effective journalistic organization, precisely because the politicians couldn't call them in to complain about their content as easily.
Don't believe me, just peruse NPR's financial statements [npr.org] (which have to be disclosed by law, just like any other 501(c)(3).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:00AM (3 children)
Remember Law #1 of SJW? They Always Lie. Not sometimes lie, not often lie, they always lie. Learn to look for it.
Yes NPR receives little direct money from the government. But it collects money from the member stations who DO get government money. From their own lips:
Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public. Its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.
Why do you think they fight like their lives depend on it every time the subject of eliminating CPB comes up? Don't listen to what they say, they always lie. Watch what they DO. They fight like cornered rats while saying that Federal funding is only a small part of their budget. And it is not just the money, it is the semi-official imprimatur of the U.S. Government making them the official voice of the State. Without it a lot of the other trust fund money they depend on might be redirected at competing non-profit radio services. New competitors might even arise.
I say KILL IT WITH FIRE. But at minimum stop making everyone pay for something that only wealthy liberals care about.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:06AM
The only one who has lied in this thread is you.
Nice attempt to justify it though. Do you manage to even fool yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:11AM (1 child)
Yes NPR receives little direct money from the government. But it collects money from the member stations who DO get government money.
By that logic any federal or state contractor is a government agency and any company they spend their money with is also a federal agency.
So, Home Depot, OfficeMax, FedEx, all government agencies!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:07PM (1 child)
The archived article keeps referring to mentally ill women as "he" and mentally ill men as "she".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:15PM
At least it's consistent. Better than most of those types can manage.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
Yakshemash.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:25PM
Gesundheit.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:56AM (3 children)
NPR's own guide on journalistic ethics [npr.org]
Journalism should be done in plain sight, and our standards are clear. When we are working, we identify ourselves as NPR journalists to those we interview and interact with. ... Do we need to announce ourselves every time we’re in a line at the supermarket and overhear what people are saying about the news of the day? Of course not. But if we want to quote what one of those people said, we need to introduce ourselves as NPR journalists and assume our “working journalist” role.
In this case the journalist's own photos suggest that the group arrived in a yellow school bus and that the meeting, at least with the representative Bell, was held in a very casual setting. There were two students and one older individual seated at the table with the representative. There is no reason to think one of those people would be a media reporter and "they should know because of my badge" is not how identifying yourself works. Even more absurd is suggesting recording equipment and a mic means anything - things any journalism club would have access to. Agree or disagree with them, they broke NPR's standards and during a meeting with high school kids. Imagine if they were assigned to major stories.
I also think the, "Senator Bell appears to have been referring to a story in Breitbart News.", line was very inappropriate. That, without substantiation, is just wild speculation intended to try to create in the mind of the reader a link between the representative and Breitbart for which there seems to be no justification. The story he was referencing was reported by numerous news organizations and Brietbart was not the source of the original source who revealed the alleged move and reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:59AM
To be clear, it's obvious that the reporter is the one holding the camera. What I mean is that in that environment - there's no reason the expect any of the people involved to be an employed media reporter without them directly identifying themselves as such.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:49AM
The reporter probably searched for recent similar stories, and the one on Breitbart News was the closest match. While it would have been better to get confirmation from the representative; I don't think it is inappropriate to mention it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:37PM
No.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"