Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the landed-gentry-vs-5th-estate dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:55PM (6 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @08:55PM (#485469) Journal

    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...)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:14PM (2 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:14PM (#485478)

    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)

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @11:40PM (#485553)

      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

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday March 29 2017, @02:32PM (#485910)

        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)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday March 28 2017, @09:23PM (#485483)

    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)

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:18AM (#485573)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:07AM (#485664)

        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.