View Full Version : 'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans
Krauter
02-02-12, 10:36 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/house-republicans-order-j_n_1246971.html?mrefid=
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning break with First Amendment policy, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Initial reports from sources suggested that an ABC News camera was also prevented from taping the hearing; ABC has since denied that they sent a crew to the hearing.
"Highly regarded" by who? I never heard of this guy.
Krauter
02-02-12, 11:05 AM
No idea. Saw this on reddit and just thought it might cause an interesting discussion.
mookiemookie
02-02-12, 11:12 AM
"Highly regarded" by who? I never heard of this guy.
Apparently the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, as it says in the article that Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award.
Rockstar
02-02-12, 11:22 AM
Appears to be cameras mounted on the wall in the background, now whether they are recording the hearing remains to be seen. I also took note nobody had any problem with the person recording the interaction between the authorities and the journalist. Which leaves me to conclude 1st ammendment rights are not the issue here. Rather this oh so "highly regarded" journalist should have read the sign before he set up his camera. It reads as follows: MEMBERS AND COMITTEE STAFF ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT. Even public hearings have rules.
mookiemookie
02-02-12, 11:29 AM
Appears to be cameras mounted on the wall in the background, now whether they are recording the hearing remains to be seen. I also took note nobody had any problem with the person recording the interaction between the authorities and the journalist. Which leaves me to conclude 1st ammendment rights are not the issue here. Rather this oh so "highly regarded" jack nut journalist should have read the sign before he set up his camera. It reads as follows: MEMBERS AND COMITTEE STAFF ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT. Even public hearings have rules.
It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.
While he is at fault for attempting to be there without a permit, it makes you wonder why they wouldn't have approved his permit this time, which by all indications, seems to be a fairly routine thing. Especially given the quote from Jerry Nadler at the end of the article that states that most people filming these sorts of proceedings don't have a permit.
Apparently the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, as it says in the article that Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award.
Well that don't prove nothing, they gave Michael Moore one too.
Krauter
02-02-12, 12:09 PM
Read the updates, it said that he did actually apply for a permit the day before
mookiemookie
02-02-12, 12:09 PM
Well that don't prove nothing, they gave Michael Moore one too.
Titanic too. :Kaleun_Periskop::Kaleun_Los:
Gargamel
02-02-12, 10:23 PM
I did see the film. Good documentary.
CaptainHaplo
02-03-12, 07:07 PM
He was told he would not meet the criteria for a press pass. Whether he applied at that point or not isn't the question. However, what is important to note is that the press credentials are not determined by the committee, or lawmakers at all (of either party). The "group" that decides press crendentials is made up of other, established journalists representing the various major networks. The group has its own standards, and does not allow press credentials for any "film" work.
The cameras that are in there are for a live webcast that was done during the hearing.
It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.
It was a public hearing, was recorded and broadcast. To claim this was about hiding corruption is simply an biased, partisan attack given this is all "by order of house republicans". We can be bigger than that, can't we?
soopaman2
02-03-12, 09:06 PM
Funny a staunch enemy of fracking, versus a government body who kisses big oils ass, as if cupid shot it with a million arrows.
But it is ok, there was a sign there prohibiting our government from being responsible to its electorate. Or recording their corporate posterior lickings.
I love how you far righties think. just don't be surprised when the unwashed masses show up at your door with pitchforks and rifles.
(single shot muzzle loaders like the old days, lefties are traditional too)
ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE OPEN. IT IS THEIR DUTY TO US.
Scared?
mookiemookie
02-03-12, 09:19 PM
It was a public hearing, was recorded and broadcast. To claim this was about hiding corruption is simply an biased, partisan attack given this is all "by order of house republicans". We can be bigger than that, can't we?
It's not partisan at all. And you ignore the facts.
We have a Congressman and a lawyer who say that these hearings are recorded all the time by those without permits. Now think, Hap, why would they do things differently in this particular hearing? Think long and hard.
If he was there strictly as a videographer, why would they deny his permit? And why would committee Republicans not want this filmed by ABC or Fox? Why do they want to keep this particular hearing buried on C-SPAN?
This isn't about credentials. It's hiding behind some arbitrary set of rules so as to cover up corruption. Maybe failing to smell the stink here means that you're the one being partisan, I don't know. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that you'd be howling if this were Dem's shutting the media out of a hearing on Planned Parenthood.
soopaman2
02-03-12, 09:32 PM
Don't bother Mookie.
If it was Demoncrats doing this, then it would be an affront so bad, it would tear the very fabric of America apart.
But because it was an anti oil proponent, he needs to be villified.
How many of your relatives died in our latest oil war? You want my count?
I am sick of big oil leading our government with a chokechain around its testicles, no oil exec sons, nor congressmans sons die in these endeavors.
To argue with far righties is like pissing into the wind.
CaptainHaplo
02-03-12, 10:34 PM
It's not partisan at all. And you ignore the facts.
We have a Congressman and a lawyer who say that these hearings are recorded all the time by those without permits. Now think, Hap, why would they do things differently in this particular hearing? Think long and hard.
If he was there strictly as a videographer, why would they deny his permit? And why would committee Republicans not want this filmed by ABC or Fox? Why do they want to keep this particular hearing buried on C-SPAN?
This isn't about credentials. It's hiding behind some arbitrary set of rules so as to cover up corruption. Maybe failing to smell the stink here means that you're the one being partisan, I don't know. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that you'd be howling if this were Dem's shutting the media out of a hearing on Planned Parenthood.
Sneaking suspicions are all they are. The difference is that the congressman referenced USED to be the chairman - who ran the committee meetings HIS way. He chose to allow non-credentialed attendees to video it. That was his choice. The current Chairman does not do the same. We are talking about a group that was reshuffled more than a year ago - after the 2010 elections - and NOW suddenly its some big news that the "evil republicans" are simply following the letter of the rules? Different chairs do things differently. Somehow following the rules is now a bad thing - only because it benefits a specific political viewpoint - ie it can be used to villify those of a different political stripe.
As for the second issue you raised - the committee does not decide who can and can't record it - that is dealt with - as I pointed out earlier - by the press corp themselves. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX - none of them chose to send their own team to video it. Are they all turning a blind eye to "evil republican corruption"? Yea - right. Your trying to blame what you see as political opponents for something they had no control over - is that really the best you can do?
For those that care - the issue before the committee was an EPA report on fracking - and its danger to ground water. There are reasonable, rational concerns that fracking presents a clear danger to the water table - and the issue needs to be investigated at length. While the hearing itself revolved around a non-scientifically trained lobbyist trying to discredit the EPA study (which I found rather laughable - the attempt - not the study), the subject itself is a serious one. I have no problem in looking at the facts with an open mind, and the report raises serious concerns.
However - taking a committee chair to task for following the rules when the videographer did not do so - is simply wrong.
Government has a duty to be open and honest with its citizens - but the citizens have the duty to deal openly and honestly with their government - and that means playing by the rules. Like it or not.
Many of us didn't like the way Obamacare was rammed down the nation's throat - but even now people work within the system to overturn it - not disregard the rules because they want to - like the videographer chose to do.
mookiemookie
02-03-12, 11:06 PM
To argue with far righties is like pissing into the wind.
To argue with a partisan of any political stripe is. But in any case, you're right. People see what they want to see and will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to make things fit into their preconceived notions. It's pretty pointless to continue.
soopaman2
02-03-12, 11:23 PM
Mr. Haplo are you supportive of the (what I see as) scum Assange and wikileaks. This is kind of the same thing.
Some see it as heroic while others see is as scummy.
My point and my applause for this man, is that I feel we need our government to be kept honest, since the mainstream media, of both flavors (left leaning like MSNBC, NYTimes, and AOLs newest lapdog, the huffington post, or far right like FOX, and the Washington Post.) all fail to do that.
They simply present what their benefactors want you to see, in a way you want to believe. Instead of informing you, they are appealing to you.
I guess you can even call this story an example of such. It does have a skew about it, not exactly neutral. Even if I do applaud the man, there is not alot of neutrality about it.
I do still wonder what the men we elected to work for us have to hide from us....
To argue with a partisan of any political stripe is. But in any case, you're right. People see what they want to see and will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to make things fit into their preconceived notions. It's pretty pointless to continue.
You say that like you are somehow immune to it yourself. Reverse the players and you'd be doing the same thing you're accusing others of.
I do still wonder what the men we elected to work for us have to hide from us....
If you really do wonder then why not just read the EPA report yourself?
soopaman2
02-03-12, 11:36 PM
If you really do wonder then why not just read the EPA report yourself?
Yeah the report:har::har::har:
Our honest government wrote it all down.:DL
They truly have the interests of everyone in mind, enough to get pissy over a camera..
Easy to fake written reports. But film is immortal. Which is why this guy is the newest member of the Washington Blacklist.:arrgh!:
Go Patriots.:salute:
mookiemookie
02-04-12, 12:36 AM
You say that like you are somehow immune to it yourself.
No, I say it because it's the truth. You're assigning that interpretation to it.
No, I say it because it's the truth. You're assigning that interpretation to it.
Ah, :up:
CaptainHaplo
02-05-12, 12:30 AM
To argue with a partisan of any political stripe is. But in any case, you're right. People see what they want to see and will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to make things fit into their preconceived notions. It's pretty pointless to continue.
Funny.. I have publicly stated that the EPA study of fracking presents serious concerns - not exactly the "partisan" position a "right winger" would be expected to have. But I guess that proves the point - you only see what you want to see, eh? You have yelled "coverup of corruption", but you can't seem to actually explain what corruption there was to coverup - especially since the webcast and report are available.....
If you really do wonder then why not just read the EPA report yourself?
I have, thus my concerns over fracking. Its not a technology that should be outright thrown away, but it appears obvious that groundwater contamination is a concern. So what that tells me is not that you throw the "baby out with the bathwater", you see if you can find safeguards that protect the groundwater from contamination while still allowing the extraction of a necessary energy source.
To be "conservative" means we want to conserve more than just jobs, or energy, or marriage and the family. It doesn't mean we follow a party line without question. Something others should learn, and practice.
Mr. Haplo are you supportive of the (what I see as) scum Assange and wikileaks. This is kind of the same thing.
Some see it as heroic while others see is as scummy.
My point and my applause for this man, is that I feel we need our government to be kept honest, since the mainstream media, of both flavors (left leaning like MSNBC, NYTimes, and AOLs newest lapdog, the huffington post, or far right like FOX, and the Washington Post.) all fail to do that.
No soopaman2 - I don't support either action. If you read what you wrote, I am not sure you can support either - it makes no sense. Both sides broke established rules. In fact, while the "data" on the wikileaks was much more impactful and harmful, the reality is that filming this was not necessary EXCEPT for a documentary with an agenda. The actual webcast of the meeting - which had the general public in attendance - is readily available. The ONLY reason this guy wanted to film it was so he could edit it in the most effective way to spout his own agenda. Breaking the rules to put out propaganda is wrong - whether its wikileaks - or its this.
Excusing the breaking of the rules for a political agenda is nothing but steps down the road to anarchy. Some like that idea. As a conservative - I don't.
Again - for those that care about the truth - docs and the webcast of the meeting are available HERE:
http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research
Nothing hidden, nothing twisted. Just the hearing itself in all its boring, governmental glory. The report is easy to find as well. How transparent, even when some would yell "coverup of corruption!" :roll:
But don't mind me, I'm supposed to be a partisan hack, remember....
Catfish
02-05-12, 08:00 AM
My point and my applause for this man, is that I feel we need our government to be kept honest, since the mainstream media, of both flavors (left leaning like MSNBC, NYTimes, and AOLs newest lapdog, the huffington post, or far right like FOX, and the Washington Post.) all fail to do that.
[...]
I do still wonder what the men we elected to work for us have to hide from us....
Which is why that should have happened :
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/AssangePerson.jpg
And, just a thought:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/AssangeandZuckerberg.jpg
:-? Makes you think ? It should.
gimpy117
02-05-12, 07:50 PM
It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.
While he is at fault for attempting to be there without a permit, it makes you wonder why they wouldn't have approved his permit this time, which by all indications, seems to be a fairly routine thing. Especially given the quote from Jerry Nadler at the end of the article that states that most people filming these sorts of proceedings don't have a permit.
why do you need a permit to film the government anyways? Unless it's some top secret meeting I can't see why american citizens should be disallowed that. But then again, the GOP would probably love anybody else filming, so long as it's Fox news
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.