Since the fucktards in black were beating on cameramen, those same cameramen who normally wouldn't hand over footage without a court order were actively volunteering it last week.
Don't fuck with the media.

I understand why journalists should not provide information gathered under any semblance of a confidentiality agreement or from a source who thinks that they are being protected in any way by the media organization. However, this footage was taken in public where there is no expectation of privacy by a cameraman who had no special access. Why should anyone think such footage would be protected? It may be doing the police's job, but I don't understand why journalists should not help the police in cases where they have no relationship with the people in the footage.

They should just broadcast what they handed over. End of story.

@2 Apparently, her spelling it out didn't help you, so let's try this. When people begin to see journalists' cameras/recorders as an extension of the police state, journalism suffers. No one trusts the journalists, so no one speaks to them. Make sense now? This is why they generally require a subpoena and try to fiercely limit/restrict what is handed over to the police.

I still say this is because they damaged the cameraman's car.

Payback's a bitch.

Kinda like why we're not supposed to feed the animals when we're camping, right?

Well if the journalists are independent and an assault happens right in front of their camera, they can independently decide to give the footage to the cops right?

It's not like they work for The Poynter Institute.

The reaction of Eli and this expert highlights just how divorced rarefied journalistic ethics have become from normal human ethics. I fully understand the cases they make, both in the sense of safeguarding journalists' continued access to sources and of safeguarding society against an emerging police state. But there is a whole lot to distingush this real case from their hypothetical nightmare scenarios. This was a story about criminal behavior that the journalists, the public, and the vandals all understood as such. The journalists hadn't made any arrangement for inside access with the vandals, who were performing their acts very publicly. The whole story was about the crimes, so the police aren't using a story whose subjects thought was about one thing to dig up evidence of different acts. Mainstream journalists understand that the mainstream public doesn't want them to be neutral between the police and criminals. Apparently the Stranger's journalists don't.

@8 You've got to be kidding me. The Stranger has been in the tank against OWS. I'm surprised they weren't down at KIRO knocking on the windows demanding they turn over the footage to the police, all while Cienna Madrid swoons and clutches her pearls.

@8: Read @4, he explains it succinctly. You have no idea what the cops may be looking for in this footage; very often they just want to go on a fishing expedition to see what might turn up. It's important that journalists draw the line and not allow that.

Don't try to speak for "mainstream journalists." You know not of what you speak.

So, it's fine for journalists to show incriminating footage of mayhem for entertainment and profit, but as soon as the police want a look, they need a subpoena? How about if the cops promise to click on the advertisement links, or click the Like button?

Either the world needs a lot more Journalism Ethics Experts, or a lot fewer, hard to say which.

#8, 9, and 11 all have their heads up someplace unlit. No one except the reporters and photographers know what is in the outtakes. They may have done an interview on background with the head of the FBI Cointel unit.

As a citizen investigatory photojournalist, I've been threatened by elements from every political persuasion and social niche. I've never been personally threatened or assaulted by the folks in black, but I have been by ignorant law enforcement agents. Worse, too many law enforcement agents engage in the flip side of the same coin: selective enforcement. i.e. They do not protect selected journalist or others of whom they disapprove.

The main thing I see when I'm covering events/a story is self described anarchists engaging in violent hate filled rhetoric intended to intimidate others--a fool's methodology. The most imminent violence/threats I've encountered comes from the homeless.

Most journalists will try to refrain from taking sides--but the gloves come off when the journalist is personally attacked/assaulted and that's to be expected.

Those interested can see/hear some of the krap/confrontations reporters/photojournalists have to cope with at:
http://amicuscuria.com/wordpress
It's not all fight club reporting, but it's bad enough that security demands company and being wired like a Christmas tress when wearing a press badge. It seems reporters don't have any friends...or at least shouldn't have, if they're any good. And the good ones don't WANT any when they're covering a story.

My experience as an investigative reporter in Seattle (P-I, 1969-1976) and elsewhere suggests to me that the fundamental issue here is for reporters and editors and newspapers to protect all of their work product from any intrusions that may have a chilling effect on their ability to gather and publish news, especially as regards protection of sources. If you attempt to deal with this on a case by case basis, you may end up opening a door you never can close again. "You let us see this--why can't we see that?"