'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans

Krauter · 02-02-12, 10:36 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...1.html?mrefid=

Quote:

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.

August · 02-02-12, 10:52 AM

"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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

"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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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.

August · 02-02-12, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Well that don't prove nothing, they gave Michael Moore one too.

Titanic too.

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

02-02-12, 10:52 AM	#2
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	"Highly regarded" by who? I never heard of this guy. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

02-02-12, 10:23 PM	#10
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,273 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	I did see the film. Good documentary. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

02-03-12, 09:06 PM	#12
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	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? __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

02-03-12, 09:32 PM	#14
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

02-02-12, 11:22 AM	#5
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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.