HOME

 

SPECIAL FEATURESNov. 2006 - Sept. 2007

Journalist or Activist?

Video blogger Josh Wolf is free from jail. For Wolf, it's the end of a record-setting prison term. But the debate over his role as a journalist continues.

By Kevin Sites, Tue Apr 3, 10:58 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO -- Whether he is a journalist or not, as many debate, Josh Wolf believed strongly enough in the journalistic principle of protecting his sources that he was willing to spend seven and a half months in a federal prison being faithful to it.

Tuesday afternoon, he walked out of the Dublin Federal Correctional Institution in California a free man.

Wolf was in prison for refusing to hand over video he shot during a protest in San Francisco in 2005. In a deal brokered between his lawyers and federal prosecutors, Wolf posted the uncut video of the protest on his site, JoshWolf.net, gave prosecutors a copy, told them he had not witnessed any crimes and was released.

Video

In interviews preceding his release, Wolf's family and peers discuss his situation. » View

In exchange, prosecutors acceded to Wolf's key contention: that he not be made to appear before a grand jury and identify those on his videotape.

"Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement,'' Wolf told reporters outside the gates of the prison. "Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.''

Just as Wolf became a poster boy for the debate over whether bloggers are actually journalists and deserving of the same legal protections, his status as an Internet icon may get another boost as likely the first federal prison inmate to be released for posting a video to his website.

Wolf, who calls himself an activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, "The Revolution Will Be Televised," filmed a July 2005 San Francisco protest against the

World Trade Organization that turned violent. A police officer suffered a fractured skull and there were allegations of attempted arson.

Wolf provided some of the footage to local television stations, but refused to give the raw outtakes to a grand jury or to testify.

(Most states, including California, have shield laws providing legal protections to journalists who want to preserve the confidentiality of unnamed sources or unpublished material gathered during the reporting process. However, those protections do not apply to proceedings in federal court. There is no federal shield law. 

For more information regarding a federal shield law, visit the Society of Professional Journalists' site; for more on Wolf's case, see Yahoo! News' Media Issues coverage.) 

The standoff led to Wolf being jailed and sparked a heated debate about whether an activist blogger deserved the same protections as a professional journalist.

I spoke to Wolf by telephone while he was still in prison a few weeks ago and asked him if his advocacy made him selective in what he videotaped at the protest. Would he turn off the camera to protect his friends? A partial transcript of our conversation follows (Listen to the full interview).

Kevin Sites: If there had been a situation where you saw a protestor beating up a police officer, or you saw them committing arson, would you have shot that?

Josh Wolf: I wasn't there to shoot that.

Kevin Sites: No, but would you have shot that?

Josh Wolf: That's a question I would have made in that moment...

Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an activist.

"My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability."— Josh Wolf

Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also...

Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist or a journalist?

Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the realm of journalism.

Kevin Sites: Right, but as an advocate, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be jailed and expect the consequences of your actions. As a journalist, you're asking for certain protections, you know, from those consequences. That's why I'm asking you, you know, which side do you want to step on at this point.

Josh Wolf: My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability.

Kevin Sites: But that truth is through, as you said, a prism of your own political convictions.

Josh Wolf: The truth is biased by everyone's convictions, whether it's a corporate conviction of your employer, your own personal convictions that are left politically based from mainstream press perspective, or a more biased perspective [because of] which you won't be as open about as a journalist who does not put forward an impression that they are trying to be objective. If you watch the videotape, you'll see there are many things that make the protestors look bad and there are things that make the cops look bad. It is essentially a balanced report of what I saw. It's a bird's eye view.

Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should be called a journalist.

"I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist," Saunders tells me from her office at the Chronicle. "There are people who fit that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist."

Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages.

"The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist," says John Diaz of the Chronicle. "The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist."

Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who decide the issue, but the government.

"The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are, because, unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush administration," Saunders says. "It will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means the courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it, but that's the way it is."

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Recommend It:

Average (Not Rated)

0.0 stars
Hot Zone Watch List
  • Algeria
  • Angola
  • Burundi
  • Chad
  • Ivory Coast
  • Korean Peninsula
  • Liberia
  • Nigeria
  • Peru
  • The Philippines
  • Thailand
  • Uzbekistan
  • Zimbabwe

Comments

Join the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

1
I have a crown, but that doesn't make me a king! This idiot should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for obstruction of justice. A policeman was badly hurt; does this nincompoop think that he is not a human being? Does he believe that as a representative of the despotic forces of law and order, the policeman may freely be hurt, even killed, righteously?
Posted by eli_silas317 on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 5:27 AM ET
2
New media forms will invariably alter the topographical line demarcating activist and journalist, and I am surprised that Sites fails to see this. The ultimate distinction Sites is after can only serve a juridical function, as has happened, and not really a moral function. It is, from the moral perspective, unethical to claim any perspective free of the "prism of ones' politics"--everything is political with political consequences, even indifference or dishonest claims to objectivity. From this perspective, the most moral thing a journalist can do is render her political commitments transparent. On the other hand, a journalist should be phenomenological in her work, in that she should suspend her presuppositions (which is not at all the same thing as claiming a position free of perspective) and confront the issue honestly--but this phenomenological imperative is the very same for activists as well; otherwise, we become fundamentalist, or we make silly slippery-slope arguments like the one posted above by eli_silas. I doubt Wolf would claim that cops can freely be hurt or even killed.
Posted by moose_indian on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 6:10 AM ET
3
( --everything is political with political consequences, even indifference or dishonest claims to objectivity.) these word's should grace every journalis bathroom mirror. And for the the few who do live by such wisdom I applaud your work. Truth is seldom found by those who can not be bothered to seek it.
Posted by zed1stwizard on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 7:43 AM ET
4
I find it amusing that the word 'activist' is being used so disparagingly. Apparently it is a crime by default now to DO anything. It seems as though the entire issue here is whether we want to sanction his actions by converting his activism to journalism (not that his behavior would have been any different) - let's remember, there was no footage relevant to the police officer that was injured, just as he told 'authorities', and he was imprisoned merely for adhering to journalistic principles - if adhering to journalistic principles makes you an 'activist' and not a 'journalist' then why bother even defining words and just lock up anyone who does anything. Hurrah for freedom!
Posted by wildcatbungalo on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 8:31 AM ET
5
Has anyone seen Fox News? Talk about "activist" journalists! What about Crossfire on CNN? There are journalists from the right and from the left. This guy deserves the same protections that those other activist journalists get.
Posted by ccondon74@sbcglobal.net on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 9:20 AM ET
6
This guy doesn't deserve the same protections as journalists. He was an activist.. He wants to show people the truth AS HE SEE'S IT. And to answer his question for him: HE WOULD NOT SHOOT THE ACTIVIST BEATING UP A OFFICER OR COMMITTING ARSON. He would have put the camera down and cheered.......... He is such a coward and wouldn't answer the question..... No respect for him....
Posted by krisbetts on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 9:51 AM ET
7
Good grief - everything said or done by any individual is from and through their own perspective. Is this krisbetts claiming absolute objectivism or merely psychic powers with the ability to see the future and read Wolf's mind?
Posted by kittykent2003 on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 10:35 AM ET
8
Responding to the first comment: If you were using that crown to rule, then you would be a king. He was using his equipment to record events. I suppose that you consider those reporters who are "embedded" with the squadrons of troops within the army to be unbiased journalists, no? It is possible, you know, to be an activist ABOUT journalism. In an age of media comercialization and conglomeration, independent journalism is more and more important. Oh and also, did you read the interview? The police officer question was a hypothetical, he didn't actually witness that happening. Besides, how many cameramen stood by watching people drown during huricane Katrina? They had video after video of corpses floating in the floodwaters and they sat around filming instead of looking for people to help. I hope you are never abused by the corporate structure, and then covered over by the corporate media.
Posted by n88819 on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 10:39 AM ET
9
I think what Josh Wolf is doing is a good thing. He is pushing our govenment and making it stronger with its values. If he wasnt pushing what he belived in, then possibly more bloggers can be jailed wrongfully. He is a journelist and deserves the same protection that they recive. GO JOSH!!
Posted by lilanita12345 on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 11:06 AM ET
10
Wolf is not a journalist, but neither is Sites and many in the current generation of activists masquerading as journalists. Wolf said, "Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement. Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.'' Taking that statement out of the activist vs. journalist debate, I'm sure Sites would agree with it. That is the current journalism argument for quoting anonymous sources, and it completely misses the point of journalism. Yes, journalists must remain independent of law enforcement, but they want to go further than that; they want to be independent of society, and that's where they go wrong on this issue. The journalist -- except in very rare instances where, for instance, the public safety is in jeopardy (you know, the nuke plant is about to blow up ...) -- is only a conduit between the person saying something and the person reading/hearing/viewing it. Anytime you insist on quoting anonymous sources with no backup attribution, you are asking the public to "trust" you. Which leads to the second part of Wolf's statement: "Otherwise, people will never trust journalists." In the context of his statement, by "people," Wolf meant sources. And that's the point -- which is more important to the journalist: trust by sources or trust by his readers/listeners/viewers? Current journalism is too concerned with the former and totally dismissive of the latter. That's why journalists now consistently have "honesty/trust ratings" around those of politicians. Another cause of that drop is another trend in journalism: taking sides. I'm a voracious consumer of news, and I can't believe how different the coverage is between, say, a Fox News and MSNBC, a Katie Couric and Britt Hume. The take by John Diaz of the Chronicle could not be further from correct: "The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist. The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist." It doesn't surprise me the knuckleheads who made such professional posts as "mezscribe" ("Kevin Sites should be given the Daniel Pearle treatment.") haven't a clue about what journalism is about, but the fact that a supposed journalist can't make the distinction is illustrative of what's wrong with my former profession.
Posted by rje90 on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 11:14 AM ET

ALSO ON YAHOO!

One Man. One Year. A World of Conflict.

Kevin's Flickr Photo Journal

Other Trip Posts

Add to My Yahoo!/RSS

  • Add Hot Zone headlines to My Yahoo!

    Add to My Yahoo! xml
» All News RSS Feeds
share this page
Alerts BellAdd an Alert - Receive the latest Hot Zone dispatches by email, instant message or mobile phone.

in memoriam

The Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone team dedicates this site to Marla Ruzicka, a fearless voice of compassion, who was killed in Iraq on April 16, 2005, while trying to lessen the suffering of others. For more information, see Civic Worldwide.