John M. Donnelly, a senior writer at CQ Roll Call, said he was trying to talk with FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly one-on-one after a news conference when two plainclothes guards pinned him against a wall with the backs of their bodies.
“Not only did they get in between me and O’Rielly but they put their shoulders together and simultaneously backed me up into the wall and pinned me to the wall for about 10 seconds just as I started to say, “Commissioner O’Rielly, I have a question,” Donnelly said Friday.Donnelly said he was stopped long enough to allow O’Rielly to walk away.
“Not only did they get in between me and O’Rielly but they put their shoulders together and simultaneously backed me up into the wall and pinned me to the wall for about 10 seconds just as I started to say, “Commissioner O’Rielly, I have a question,” Donnelly said Friday.
Donnelly said he was stopped long enough to allow O’Rielly to walk away.
—Los Angeles Times
Donnelly, who also happens to be chair of the National Press Club Press Freedom team, said he was then forced out of the building after being asked why he had not posed his question during the news conference.O'Rielly apologized to Donnelly on Twitter, saying he didn't recognize Donnelly in the hallway. "I saw security put themselves between you, me and my staff. I didn't see anyone put a hand on you. I'm sorry this occurred."
Donnelly, who also happens to be chair of the National Press Club Press Freedom team, said he was then forced out of the building after being asked why he had not posed his question during the news conference.
O'Rielly apologized to Donnelly on Twitter, saying he didn't recognize Donnelly in the hallway. "I saw security put themselves between you, me and my staff. I didn't see anyone put a hand on you. I'm sorry this occurred."
According to the publication for which the reporter works (archived copy),
Senators, including Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, are warning the Federal Communications Commission about its treatment of reporters after a CQ Roll Call reporter was manhandled Thursday.“The Federal Communications Commission needs to take a hard look at why this happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. As The Washington Post pointed out, it’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences,” the Iowa Republican said. “It happens all day, every day. There’s no good reason to put hands on a reporter who’s doing his or her job.”
Senators, including Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, are warning the Federal Communications Commission about its treatment of reporters after a CQ Roll Call reporter was manhandled Thursday.
“The Federal Communications Commission needs to take a hard look at why this happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. As The Washington Post pointed out, it’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences,” the Iowa Republican said. “It happens all day, every day. There’s no good reason to put hands on a reporter who’s doing his or her job.”
Related stories:Reporter Arrested for "Yelling Questions" at HHS Secretary Tom PriceFCC to Make Proposals Public, Rescinds Net Neutrality ClaimsISPs “Reminded” to Not Use Government Money for Alcohol and VacationsBuyer's Remorse on Net NeutralityFTC V. AT&T to be ReheardBot Floods the FCC's Website with Anti-Net Neutrality CommentsJohn Oliver Leads Net Neutrality Defenders to Crash FCC Website. Again.Crowdfunded Billboards Shame Four Members of Congress Who Sold Out Your Online PrivacyTrump Signs Bill Allowing ISPs to Share or Sell Customers' Browsing History"Dig Once" Bill Could Bring Fiber Internet to Much of the USUS Congress is Trying to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections [UPDATED]Rally Marks Anniversary of Net Neutrality Rule as New FCC Chair Puts It in CrosshairsFCC Lets "Billion-Dollar" ISPs Hide Fees and Data Caps, Democrat SaysWith Net Neutrality Pretty Much Dead in the US, Your Privacy is NextAjit Pai to Become New Head of the FCCFCC's Tom Wheeler Accuses AT&T and Verizon of Violating Possibly Short-Lived Net Neutrality RulesAfter Setback, FCC Chairman Keeps Pushing Set-Top Box and Privacy RulesFacebook in Talks With U.S. Government About Bringing "Free Basics" to AmericaVerizon to Disconnect Unlimited Data Users Who Use "Extraordinary" Amounts of DataU.S. Appeals Court Upholds Net Neutrality Rules in FullNetflix Slows Data Transmission for Certain CustomersFacebook Moves in to Make the Web a Facebook MonopolyThe Dragonslayer: An Interview with FCC Chairman Tom WheelerHow a DIY Network Plans to Subvert Time Warner Cable's NYC Internet MonopolySix Senators Show StupidityFCC Had "Productive" Net Neutrality Talks With Comcast and T-Mobile
The bodyguards didn't even have to get violent. They just got in the way, LOL!
Oh look! Derp's here celebrating censorship. Where is the mighty blubberer to put him in his place? Freedom of speech is the most important thing of them all!!!!
And Derp? Apparently you can't read either, "pinned me to the wall" is assault.
Oh look, its buthurt's anonymous alter ego venting his outrage.
"pinned me to the wall" is assault.
We only have butthurt reporter's word for that, don't we.
The staff reports that incident quite differently. It seems that after the press meeting, staff was huddled together, making their way back to their offices. Some mad man came running down the hallway, and ran into two of their members. It almost looked like the mad man was trying to tackle his victims. Full body contact, just like football - WHAM! Security escorted the mad man from the building, before he could make another attempt to tackle the staff.
Got in the way for ten whole seconds.
I have no doubt this reporter was being the usual arrogant shouter trying to get his rendition of the same exact question already asked and answered in the press conference. If fact the youtube shows exactly that.
The guy kind of reminds me of Buthurt, who piles on link after repetitive link on the end his stories as if the same liberal press story is somehow more believable in the echo chamber of a thousand links all saying the same thing.
Buthurt: Stop that.Editors: Put a stop to that. He's just playing link bait for biased press.
I'd be interested in your quoting the part of the First Amendment that says violating Freedom of The Press is OK if you only do it for 10 seconds.
piles on link after repetitive link
Yeah. I've said before that including a link but not quoting from that page just adds bulk to the submission without adding information.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
I'm more interested in your justification for chasing an official down after he leaves a press conference, to interrogate him at your own leisure. There are established protocols for this stuff, you realize?
You never heard the term "public servant"?How about "I pay your salary"?
I made a submission about a way to deal with Congresscritters who duck out on/avoid town hall meetings in their districts.With GOP Reps in Hiding After Trumpcare Vote, Dems "Adopt" Those Districts [soylentnews.org]
You are almost right that there are protocols. FTFS:
"...As The Washington Post pointed out, it’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences,”
Just so there's no misunderstanding, the direct quote from the WP article: "Seeking to question officials after news conferences is standard practice for journalists in Washington."
I know thinking is hard and thirty seconds is a long time, but please - do so before each post.
That happens all the time with the president, doesn't it? What needs to happen, is for some papparazzi to be shot down like dogs, for harassing people. Then, the courts need to make sure that the body guards are acquitted. Put just a little chill on overly exuberant "reporters". If the low-life papparazzi deaths don't send the proper message, then the Secret Service can target a couple lower-caste "reporters" in Washington.
I don't think freedom of the press means what you think it does. Did you skip the 6th grade?
All it means is they won't be prosecuted for printing government secrets.It doesn't give them special access, the right to go anywhere at anytime and accost any government employee at will.
Time for you to go back to school.
It would be interesting for you to point to a similar defense of a public servant done by you during a Democrat administration.
...and it's sad when people don't know history.Reporters shouting questions at passing officials is as old as time itself.Ronnie Raygun would mime that he couldn't make out the question.It's all a part of the game.Even Reactionary Reagan didn't have thugs get physical with reporters.That part is a more recent addition.
The First Amendment also encompasses "freedom of speech." Asking a question would be encompassed by that, I should think.
Nobody prevented him from speaking.
I would imagine that being pinned against a wall would be likely to impede someone's speech. Mr. O'Reilly gave a different account of what happened. You say you've seen a video, and I asked where that was, but you didn't answer.
Keep imagining. An unauthorized person wandering through a government building may expect to be pinned to the wall - maybe even permanently. Just stick some knives through his arms and legs, pin him to the wall like a butterfly. Leave his rotting corpse right there on the wall, as a warning to the next fool to come along.
In what way is legal physical restraint of the press in public areas not a law abridging the freedom of the press?It is hard to imagine a more literal demonstration freedom being abridged.
You authoritards are ridiculously servile.
Servile? Let me serve you some tube steak, you little whiny bitch.
> [...] as if the same liberal press story is somehow more believable in the echo chamber of a thousand links all saying the same thing. [...] He's just playing link bait for biased press.
I do have my biases, but I try to be fair. In a recent submission I quoted from the National Review and linked to the New York Post. Perhaps you prefer publications that are farther to the right, or perhaps you didn't bother to consider that story, which ran yesterday, in your evaluation of me?
For this story, please confirm: you're saying that the Daily Caller and the Meridian Star out of Meridian, Mississippi are too liberal? Who covered this story in a way that you would accept?
> If fact the youtube shows exactly that.
To go offtopic, this kind of shit from long time established users is one reason I will not donate to this site. It is a soapbox for authoritarian apologists promoting a future police state. On one hand many users will cry about freedom of speech and surveillance, but then they turn around and applaud actions such as this.
Sure SN may be uncensored, but censorship does take on a cultural aspect as well. The sheer level of bullshit promoted in the comments is daunting, and I'm not sure I want to fund a soapbox for such people. Discussions are often sidetracked into bullshit arguments, with the more vocal users never responding when finally called out for their shit.
Tell me to fuck off all you want, call me a snowflake or whatever makes you feel better, but this site IS becoming an echo chamber for the libertarian / alt right. There are very vocal opponents to this worldview, but the steady hammering of close minded responses is driving people away. Suspected admin abuse for moderation and IP tracking has been voiced before, which to me is not surprising. Hell, in a recent thread one user said that a spam moderation was inappropriate, and TMB responded with "handled". Let users counter-mod if they believe something to be incorrectly modded, but that instance made me question how many comments have been modified by admin abuse. Many geeks who run their own systems are the fiefdom types (no I'm not the AC who started of the fuck SN thread in the updates article) who enjoy their special privileges. Given TMBs history of trolling / lies I would not think it unlikely for him to mod comments to counter suspected "brigading".
Unless SN can do something to alleviate these potential problems and concerns then I will not every subscribe. Perhaps log all official actions and make them publicly visible. Also, develop some methods of preventing admin abuse. It was stated that IPs are not logged / tracked, but TMB recently revealed that the IPs are stored as hashes, and with some work could be unveiled. I have my own reasons to suspect he does some personal tracking of AC comments. Again, address these concerns and bring back the trust that is supposedly so sacrosanct. With troll admins like TMB it is simply too much to ask for simple faith.
Oh, but of course, it's not an echo chamber for the progressive left, now is it?
Sure, a story like this can easily become a "he said, she said" kind of thing where nobody really knows what happened. Except several people likely know what happened -- at least the reporter, two security guards, and O'Rielly. Given that this happened immediately after a press conference in a public place, it's likely there were other witnesses too.
it sounds like they were 'polite but firm' that this person they didn't recognize was not going to just walk up to their charge and interrupt his journey.
If they actually pushed him into a wall and held him there (even briefly), as he claims, that's a little more than "polite but firm."
If I just gave a press conference and answered their questions and then one of them tried to accost me on the way out to ask another question I might very well feel reasonable in brushing right on past and ignoring them. Should have asked it during the conference, now you'll have to email.
In normal (non-Trump) times, it's pretty common for reporters to approach a speaker and ask questions within a public space. It's absolutely the right of the speaker to "brush past" if they want. It's less typical for plainclothes "goons" to step out and push someone up against a wall, unless they're doing something aggressive or which makes them look like a credible threat.
is that actually what happened? Did they lay hands on him or simply give him the polite but firm cold shoulder for a critical couple of seconds thereby allowing their charge to get on with his day? Not the same thing at all.
I agree. It's "not the same thing at all."
Here are several reasons why I think your interpretation is less likely in this instance:
(1) O'Rielly actually apologized directly. The FCC has said on the record that they "apologized repeatedly." If this were just a minor misunderstanding, they'd likely emphasize that instead. The strength of the apologies seem to mean they know something inappropriate likely happened.(2) This isn't just a single reporter tweeting about what (supposedly) happened to him. The story was part of a National Press Club press release [press.org]. That signals to me that either they greatly respect this reporter and trust that he wouldn't exaggerate something like this and/or there were other witnesses that noticed something odd happening.(3) The Ars Technica piece has this to say about what happened AFTER the incident:
“One of the guards, Frederick Bucher, asked Donnelly why he had not posed his question during the press conference,” the National Press Club wrote. “Then Bucher proceeded to force Donnelly to leave the building entirely under implied threat of force.”
Donnelly also alleged that the security guards shadowed him as if he were a security threat and waited for him outside the bathroom, “even though he continuously displayed his congressional press pass and held a tape recorder and notepad.”
This doesn't sound like "Oops -- sorry we had to push you out of the way to ensure our guy could get past" kind of behavior. This sounds more like "YOU WILL RESPECT MA' AUTHORITAY!" kind of behavior.
(1) O'Rielly actually apologized directly. The FCC has said on the record that they "apologized repeatedly." If this were just a minor misunderstanding, they'd likely emphasize that instead. The strength of the apologies seem to mean they know something inappropriate likely happened.
This is exactly why so many people recommend to never apologize for anything. If you do, it will be seen as admission of guilt.
It's not the mere fact of an apology -- it's the emphasis. If there's a misunderstanding, and you want to "save face" publicly and emphasize no wrongdoing, you might apologize AND explain the misunderstanding. Here, instead you have mutiple FCC officials emphasizing apologies, including the commissioner himself, and no attempt to "save face" other than some muttering about vague "threats" that could have caused security to be a little anxious or something. (There are always vague "threats" to blame stuff like this on.)
What if you are guilty? We all fuck up once in a while.