Police target citizen journalists

The above video makes some good points about how police in the USA are targeting citizen journalists with illegal arrest and even acts of unprovoked violence. Dangerous business for individual freedoms – great for a police state.

The irony of the video is that it is put together by RT TV – Russia Today Television – owned by the Russian Government, and it of course doesn’t mention how Mr. Putin and the other big-ups from the KGB have for almost a hundred years targeted and murdered journalists as casually as one would order a cup of coffee. Nice touch for RT TV to make the piece about US police while ignoring the KGB or whatever they are called today.

But, it’s still interesting and worthwhile viewing.

A further point found on RT TV’s Wikipedia entry: “The 2012 Russian Federal Budget allocated 11 billion rubles (US$334 million) to RT’s parent company ANO TV-Novosti.”

Also of interest: Media Roots: The Establishment vs. Citizen Journalism

Thanks to an old friend for suggesting this video.


Filed under Barbados News & Media, Crime & Law, Freedom Of The Press, Human Rights, News Media, Police

9 responses to “Police target citizen journalists

  1. Green Monkey

    If You Love Your Freedom, Thank a Dirty Effing Hippie


    As anarchist Rudolf Rocker argued, our freedom results, not from the state, but from the people’s willingess to defy authority and to resist its encroachments on our freedom. Far from being granted by the state and defended by its armed functionaries, our rights exist because we forced them on the state — very much against its will — from below. And we keep those rights, not because American troops kick down doors in Baghdad or drones massacre wedding parties in Afghanistan, but because ordinary people raise hell and refuse to obey the state here at home.

    Every “patriotic” holiday, columnists and editorial page editors trot out that same tiresome column: “It’s not the protestor that gives us free speech, it’s the soldier …” That’s exactly backward. None of our wars abroad has a thing to do with defending our freedom here at home. And if the military is ever employed domestically, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be employed to suppress our freedom at gunpoint.

    Every single bit of freedom we have comes from the troublemakers, rabble-rousers, pariahs, the people utterly devoid of respectability — the Dirty Effing Hippies, in Nixon’s parlance — and their willingness to say things the government doesn’t want them to. Our freedom is expanded and defended by the very types of people who are spat upon — run out on a rail — by “good respectable citizens,” and tossed in jail by local cops. Our freedoms come from the people who were imprisoned by John Adams under the Sedition Act, the thousands of Wobblies who packed local jails during the Free Speech Campaign, and Breanna Manning who is tortured daily in prison for exposing the American government’s war crimes to the world.

    The attitude of respectable people — the very people most apt to smugly quote that “it’s not the protestor” column, in fact — toward the actual defenders of our freedom was expressed by the mayor of a Midwestern city back in the 1920s: “Any time I hear somebody talking about freedom of speech, or the bill of rights, I think, ‘That man is a God-damned Red.’ No good American talks that way.”

    So if you love your freedom, don’t thank a soldier. Thank a dirty effing hippie.


  2. BFP

    Good piece, Green Monkey,

    But it is not the dirty f’ing hippie I’ll thank… (although thanks may be due if they are not burning something down), rather I’ll thank the army of countless citizens – the pajamas media – who work to get out the message and uncover the hidden, and who don’t have to destroy, assault or defecate on police cars to communicate their message. For the vast majority of those ‘dirty f’ing hippies’ of Occupy Wall Street couldn’t describe why they do what they do if their lives depended upon it. IMHO.


  3. Not the original Green Monkey


  4. Green Monkey

    Actually Marcus, the way I read it was that the author was indicating that Nixon labelled any dissenters, anti-war activists, unsupportive alternative media types etc as “dirty effin hippies” as a means of discounting the importance and impact of their opinions. In that way he could, in his own mind, feel assured that their anti-war protests etc. were of no consequence and would not garner any support from the more mainstream members of society.

    Funnily enough, when I was in the USA in the early 70s, the most active and vociferous members of the anti-war movement I met were Vietnam vets who had made it back stateside in one piece after their tour was over and, other than their anti-war activism, their lifestyles definitely, as far as I could determine, were not the typical lifestyle one would associate with the hippie movement; These vets were mostly all taking college level courses in technical or business/management subjects thanks to the GI bill and had steady full or part time jobs. To Nixon however, these guys would have been consigned to the “dirty effin hippie” bin, and their anti-war advocacy written off, in his mind, as of no more relevance than the ravings of some irresponsible, long-hared, stoned-out, drug addled freaks of nature.

    So in other words, my take was the author was using the “thank the ‘dirty effin hippies'” more in an ironic fashion than in a literal sense.

    I agree with you and BFP and am entirely onboard with the idea of citizens taking journalism into their own hands, so to speak, when they see the corporately owned and controlled, advertiser dependent media is falling down on the job and neglecting to cover certain stories, presumably out of fear that offending influential government or business figures could lead to information sources being cut off, loss of advertising revenue etc.

    Just last Wednesday evening, for example, on the web based No Lies Radio, I was able to watch a live stream of the San Francisco premiere of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth new video documentary “9/11:Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out”, In this documentary 43 highrise architects, engineers, and credentialed scientists explain why they are convinced that the explanations for the explosive and rapid collapses of WTC buildings 1 and 2 and the controlled demolition like destruction of WTC 7 (not hit by a plane) as presented to the public by the USA’s National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) are pretty much bunkum and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny,

    Some also voice their concerns over the shoddy way the investigation was conducted. For example, the almost immediate shipping out of the structural steel from the WTC site to Asia to be melted down as scrap before it could be forensically examined to assist scientists and engineers in conducting a thorough investigation of the causes of the collapses they describe as a crime in itself amounting to destruction of evidence from a crime scene.

    No way the mainstream media wants to have anything to do with this organization unless they figure their is some way to make them all look like wacko “conspiracy theorists” of the same ilk as those who might believe Elvis was kidnapped by a UFO and is still alive and living on Mars. Since those testifying on the video have engineering or architectural degrees and extensive work experience in those fields or have backgrounds as working scientists or experience in scientific research at reputable universities, that’s not so easy. So they ain’t gonna touch that story with a 10 foot pole. However thanks to the internet, citizen journalists and No Lies Radio I, and others from around the globe, still got to watch the event all in live and living colour.

    (If you decide to watch any of the numerous video clips of the unedited interviews with the various architects, engineers and scientists, turn off the popup radio player in the top right of the page which comes on automatically and will drown out the audio from the videos)

  5. Green Monkey

    FYI: The original Green Monkey would like to make it known that the Green Monkey who posted the comment “Bravo !” on July 13th at 3:30pm is not the Green Monkey who posted the first response on this thread on July 13th at 12:15pm i.e. “The thank a dirty effin hippy” comment and also the later comment posted above on June 14 at 2:58am.

    Don’t know who felt obligated to step into my shoes and speak for me. But someone apparently did.

  6. BFP

    Hi Green Monkey. We can see that the other GM is not you, so I changed his/her name a bit.


  7. Green Monkey

    Please know that American prisons have been turned over to private enterprise!
    In other words,
    America’s prison system is no longer being run by Government/individual States!

    As such, this is now “Prison Industry, Inc.” if you will..
    with vested interests -and a clear profit motive!
    So lock up all those blacks and rowdy Hispanics
    all those f-ing Pot-smokin Hippies
    and anyone else even vaguely eligible for some Time in Da Big House!

    The more folks we have incarcerated
    the better our balance sheet looks at year-end!
    -get the picture now?

  8. Green Monkey

    FYI: That “Green Monkey” post directly above about the privatization of prisons in the USA (July 16 @ 3:57pm) is not by me, the Original Green Monkey, either – not that I really disagree with anything in the post.

    On to today’s topic:
    All obedient media presstitutes should know maybe its time to stop digging and keep their mouths shut when their own government’s wrongdoing is uncovered says a CNN columnist:
    From Glenn Greenwald’s June 27 column at Salon:

    CNN journalist: don’t be nosy

    LZ Granderson is a regular CNN columnist and contributor, and has written a column this week that — no joke — urges Americans to stop being so “nosy” about all the bad things the U.S. Government does. You just have to read it to believe it:

    We are a nosy country.

    Though to be fair, it’s not entirely our fault. Between the 24/7 news cycle, social media and reality TV, we have been spoon fed other people’s private business for so long we now assume it’s a given to know everything. And if there are people who choose not to disclose, they must be hiding something. Being told that something’s “none of your business” is slowly being characterized as rude, and if such a statement is coming from the government, it seems incriminating.

    Times have changed. Yet, not everything is our business. And in the political arena, there are things that should be and need to be kept quiet. . . .

    You see, freedom isn’t entirely free.

    It also isn’t squeaky clean.

    And sometimes the federal government deems it necessary to get its hands a little dirty in the hopes of achieving something we generally accept as good for the country. . . .

    And maybe it’s better for us not to be so nosy, not to know everything because, to paraphrase the famous line from the movie “A Few Good Men,” many of us won’t be able to handle the truth.

    (GM comment: Like maybe the truth about what really happened on 9/11, for example?)

    (Glenn Greenwald continues:)
    I trust not much needs to be said about this. It mocks itself. The authoritarianism on display is just cringe-inducing. I suppose the only thing surprising about it is that someone who works in journalism, and a media corporation that claims to do journalism, would publish something that admits to thinking this way.

    The reason I note this is not the entertainment value of marveling at something so inane (at least not primarily). It’s because this is a very common mindset in the journalist class, among media personalities with much more influential platforms than Granderson’s.


    Recall that on the day that WikiLeaks began publishing diplomatic cables — revealing all sorts of deceit, corruption and illegality — CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was completely indifferent to the revelations themselves, but was furious that the U.S. Government allowed these disclosures to take place and thus forced him and his viewers to learn what the U.S. Government and its allies were doing in the dark. Or recall the debate I had with CNN’s Jessica Yellin and Fran Townsend in which both insisted that WikiLeaks should be criminally prosecuted for the leaks it enabled. Or just survey the bizarrely personal, unprofessional and falsehood-filled expressions of contempt for Assange that have been spewing forth from the British media class, many of whom (not coincidentally) were and are ardent, public supporters of the war policies he helped to expose and subvert and, more generally, religious believers in the inherent Goodness of the West and its governments’ conduct in the world.

    This is the glaring paradox at the heart of the establishment media class. They parade around as adversarial watchdogs whose prime role is to foster transparency and shine a light on what is done in secret. But there is literally no group more slavishly devoted to the virtues of government secrecy than they. LZ Granderson’s demand that we keep our nosy noses out of what the Government does (like Richard Cohen’s similar demand that we keep the lights off) is notable only because it’s a more explicit and honest expression of this ethos than they usually admit to.

    Complete article at:

  9. Green Monkey

    A recent New York Times article admits that many mainstream US news organizations (including the NY Times) allow government or political campaign officials to censor quotes by important political figures.

    Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It Back

    The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

    They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

    Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

    The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

    The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.

    Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

    The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

    From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”