BY JOSH WOLF
Richmond Confidential Staff Writer

Adriel Hampton admits his chances of getting elected to congress are slim, but he hopes his web-centric vision of American politics will serve as a harbinger.

Like most of the candidates running in Tuesday’s special election for the 10th Congressional District, Hampton, a 31-year-old Democrat from Dublin, opposes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He’s in favor of gay marriage, single-payer health care and is advocating for an end to the War on Drugs.

But it is Hampton’s roots in what’s been coined “Government 2.0,” that set him apart.
Government 2.0 is a movement to apply the framework of Web 2.0, — social networking, open-source software and collaborative communication — to politics and government.

“It gives us the ability to connect with each other. And to see where certain things lie and how we can come together,” said Brooklyn resident Noel Hidalgo, 31, of the New York state senate. “We traditionally would have created this one-way platform, (but) instead these online tools allow us to develop a forum-nature where we can communicate with each other as well as elected officials.”

As the Director of Technology Innovations, Hidalgo created a Web site for the state senate that allows voters to connect with their representative through phone and e-mail, but also Facebook and Twitter.

“Ten years ago a politician who didn’t know how to use e-mail wouldn’t get reelected, and pretty soon it will be the same way for social media,” said D-10 candidate Hampton. “Using Web 2.0 tools to set an agenda, to actually get more voter buy-in, to really use it for governance. I think what I’m trying to do now will become more popular.”

But Jack Pitney, 54, a Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, said Government 2.0 isn’t needed to break down the walls of communication between politicians and their constituents.

“What barrier? Anyone can e-mail members of congress now. In the days of postal mail they were attentive to postal mail,” said Pitney. “Obviously we’d all like immediate face-time with a member of Congress. That isn’t always possible. … There are many many problems with congress but I don’t think a disregard of constituent mail is one of them.”

Hampton acknowledges that it will be difficult to change the paradigm, but he said the potential for Government 2.0 goes well beyond what’s possible through phone calls or e-mail.

He is exploring using MixedInk, a web-based collaborative writing tool, to collectively write legislation with individual groups and constituents. He has also launched an interactive policy page at adriel.nationbuilder.com. Registered visitors to the site can choose to endorse or oppose the priorities that are already listed, or they can add their own agenda.

“A more transparent process would be pretty cool. You’d actually see who had their fingers in the legislation. … Sierra Club wants to mark up my legislation. I’m going to have the final say and everybody is going to see,” said Hampton. “I don’t think congress is going to embrace that. I think that you’re not going to change the status quo by just pushing on the status quo.”

But if Hampton’s ideas for Government 2.0 are liable to challenge the status quo, then a victory by Mark Loos, 46, a Republican candidate from Livermore, could be seen as a declaration of war.

Loos promises to vote the will of his constituents on everything that crosses his desk. He said he plans set up a secure Web site with a list of all the bills and allow every registered voter in his district to have an account.

“However this district wants this question answered, that will be the way I vote. … If the voters are really interested in the process they need to have some sort of benefit to read the bill. That’s why I like putting the teeth in it,” said Loos. “If I (have) to call every voter to get them involved, that’s what I’m going to do, literally.”

But Pitney insists nothing will ever replicate a New England Town Hall Democracy.

“I don’t see anyway that you could return to those days,” said Pitney. “I think the Internet is a wonderful tool. I spend most of my day online, but it does not represent a recreation of human nature.”

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is quoted on Countdown as describing the potential precedent that may have been set when Bill Clinton flew to North Korea to rescue Laura Ling and Euna Lee. While his sentiment that Clinton should have done nothing to free the women is disgusting, his concerns may come to play in the days ahead following the capture of three UC Berkeley graduates on the Iraq-Iran border.

Shane Bauer, a reporter for New America Media, his girlfriend Sarah Shourd, a freelance reporter and their friend Joshua Fattal have apparently been captured by the Iranian government after accidently stumbling across the Iranian border, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sound familiar? But unlike Ling and Lee who work for a company headed by a man who has President Bill Clinton’s cell on his speed dial, these three intrepid travelers must rely on whatever strings Bauer’s small nonprofit employer can muster.

I couldn’t disagree more with the pundits on Fox News and am thankful to have seen Clinton step in to secure Ling and Lee’s freedom, but their concerns over how this will bode for the next group of Americans caught in a similar situation, which has already happened, is not completely irrational.

If asked, should Clinton agree to meet with Mahmud Ahmadinejad to secure the release of Bauer, Shourd, and Fattal? Would he be willing to step in for a repeat performance?

Or would that set a dangerous precedent equitable to negotiating with terrorists?

In the City of San Mateo you can pick up three different daily newspapers for free. Or, you can drop a dollar for the San Francisco Chronicle, which raised its rate today (though the newsrack I found was still only charging $.75)

Meanwhile, the Chronicle is trying to experiment by offering a weekly column by Phil Bronstein that will only appear in print. As if Bronstein alone can save a newspaper that decided to raise prices because not enough people want to pay for it.

There’s been a lot of clamoring that the only way to stem off this plague that’s killed newspaper after newspaper is to start charging for online content. It almost makes sense, people don’t want to pay for something they can get for free so if you charge them to read it online both sides of the business should benefit right?

I doubt it. I suspect that charging for online access will simply result in fewer informed people and more people turning to cable news in lieu of newspapers.

Why? Because people will gladly pay money for their MTV and VH1 celebreality melee. They’ll even check out the news that comes with their cable from time to time. But how many people would pay extra if the news stations were an ala-carte package? Not many, and most of them would probably be in their 30s and above.

That doesn’t mean that young people aren’t interested in the news. Most of us just aren’t willing to pay for it. Everyone I know will grab the local weekly and thumb through it, often cover-to-cover. Our news is filtered through blogs, twitter, and original news websites on a constant basis, and it doesn’t seem like the internet has made us less informed.

But it has made us cheap. Napster taught us we didn’t have to pay for music and newspapers themselves conditioned us to the idea that news should be free. Napster’s gone, of course, but between Pandora, Hulu, and a myriad of other web applications, it’s difficult to persuade us to pay money for something that we can’t feel between our fingers.

Does this mean that we should just accept the death of newspapers and move on? I don’t think so. The Daily Post, The Daily News, and The Daily Journal all distribute free newspapers along the mid-peninsula and the business model appears to be successful.

Until earlier this month I wrote for the Daily Post, and the experience helped me understand that a newspaper serves a role in the community the way a website probably never will. And a free newspaper, especially in transit-rich communities, will be read by almost everyone, from the very rich to the very poor.

Poor circulation may have squeezed the life out of the newspaper business, but if the Chronicle wanted to do a real experiment — instead of trying to figure out whether anyone besides Bronstein’s own family will pay a $1 to read his column — they should try giving the paper away for free and sell more advertising to cover the costs associated with putting out the paper.

The following was excerpted from an e-mail I sent Ryan Tate of Gawker after reading his post about David Simon’s testimony at a Senate hearing on the future of newspapers May 6.

As far as the whole issue of bloggers attending city council meetings and what not… the fact of the matter is that bloggers can and do play a watchdog role, but it is rarely sustainable on a full-time basis, and watching city hall can be a full-time job. Yes, some people are probably managing to cover it with the depth and regularity of whatever the daily rag happens to be in that town, but again, it is the rare case where this is sustainable for any long period.

That said, while there are a number of news Web sites that are able to generate enough revenue to pay employees a living wage, I don’t know of any good examples of a local news site. Advertising on the Web only seems to be practical on a scale that doesn’t seem realistic for local content.

If anything is Google’s fault. This is where it happens. By owning the advertising market and garnering a small slice off every ad on the internet, it was to Google’s advantage to drive down the cost of advertising to the point that it became ubiquitous. Sure, they created an open market, but they did so in such a way that created a race to the top, but a race to the bottom.

Now advertising on the Web is so affordable, that I could take a month’s paycheck and probably buy a million “quality” impressions. Compare that to the cost of a million impressions through print publications and you’ll see why Google may not have violated their ‘do no evil’ mantra, we certainly can no longer say they’ve done no harm.

The North Korean government has announced that two American journalists who were captured near the Chinese border will stand trial for entering the country illegally.

The two reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, are employed by Al Gore’s San Francisco-based cable outlet Current TV. They were arrested on March 17 while reporting from the frozen Tumen, which forms the border between China and North Korea. They were working on a story about North Korean refugees.

But one would never know that two of Current’s reporters could spend the next five to ten years in a North Korean labor camp by visiting the company’s Web Site. In fact, Pacifica has confirmed that any effort to publicize the plight of the two reporters in the company’s online forums is quickly scrubbed from the site.

Current TV has not issued a public statement about its reporters and repeated calls seeking comment have gone unreturned. When journalist Ian Port visited Current’s headquarters, he was told to turn off his camera and asked to leave.

The company’s silence has generated concern from reporters and press activists around the world. Curt Hopkins, the Executive Director for the Committee to Protect Bloggers, told Pacifica that while security experts sometimes recommend keeping quiet to ensure the quick return of captives, the silence could actually delay their release.

Hopkins: We were told by people in larger organizations than our own that the best thing to do is to kind of shut up and if you just don’t stir up anything, they’ll be released. I’m sure that does happen every once in a while, and I’m also certain that given former Vice President’s Gore’s connection with diplomatic circles that probably every diplomatic thing is being done. However, there’s just a tendency in general to advocate for silence, and my experience, having been contacted as the head of the Committee to Protect Bloggers by a number of different people who knew they were going to be questioned by the security forces in their country, they said to me, ‘don’t do anything right now, but if you don’t hear from me in 48 hours just sound the alarm as loud as you possibly could’

Hopkins said that Current’s decision to censor comments posted on its Web site about its imprisoned reporters leaves him feeling like the company has abandoned its reporters.

Hopkins: I just think it makes them an organization, which no reasonable journalist, whether citizen or professional, would have anything to do with, because whatever is going on behind the scenes, and it may be quite a lot, I don’t know, but I’m not going to take that chance. I won’t work for them. Because for all I know their main consideration is their IPO. They don’t have so much as a badge on their site that says ‘don’t forget these two’. … If I’m working for you, you owe me. If I’m risking myself and going to strange situations and so on, I’m not just in your debt, you’re in my debt and you damn well better step up if something like this happens.

Robert Wood, a spokesperson for the State Department said at a press conference today that the United States is quietly working to secure the release of Lee and Ling.

Wood: The best I can tell you is we’ve seen these reports. And again, we continue to call on the North Koreans to release the two Americans so they can be returned to their families. We’ll continue to work this issue through diplomatic channels. As I’ve said we’re trying to work this quietly and we’re going to continue to work it, but I don’t have much to say beyond that right now.

But with no formal diplomatic relations between the US and North Korea, the process of negotiating their release is difficult. John Feffer is the Co-director of Foreign Policy and Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies. He says that Current’s decision not to comment may be the best approach to secure their release.

Feffer: Once you raise a public human cry, you may very well block the option of pursuing quiet diplomacy, so I think most folks concerned with the case are trying, at least at this point, to see what can be done quietly, and I think that’s appropriate. … Pursuing the quiet approach, at least at this point, seems to promise the greatest likelihood of success.

Robert Mahoney, the deputy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists told Pacifica that while there have been indications that Lee and Ling are being treated humanely, neither humanitarian groups nor the US Government have been granted access to them. A Swedish representative did visit the two reporters last month.

Mahoney: North Korea is probably the most heavily censored country in the world. It doesn’t have any press except for government press and so therefore it’s an extremely difficult country to report from. We have seen that these two journalists were detained on the border with china in circumstances which, as far as we can tell, are not fully explained. It therefore is extremely difficult to get information about them and to work for their release with a government that has a history of not taking the world’s opinion into consideration.

Reporter’s without Borders has created a petition of journalists and bloggers calling for the release of the two Current reporters.

Brendan McShane Creamer, a Philadelphia resident who knows Laura Ling’s sister Lisa, has created a Facebook group about the plight of thejournalists, which now has more than 2,500 members calling for theirrelease.

Creamer has organized a candle-light vigil in front of Current TV’s San Francisco headquarters at 7 o’clock Tuesday night, and another vigil will be held at Del Campo High School in Fair Oaks California at the same time.

Creamer: I decided Current would be a great place to start and then Del Campo High School is where Laura Ling attended high school, and Lisa Ling also attended there. I’ve been in contact with Lisa Ling and so, with her permission and everything, I’ve been putting information out on the group page on Facebook and e-mailing people. She just sent me a message to send out to everyone on Facebook, on the group page, and she has it posted on her page, thanking everyone for this vigil, and stating the reasons why she can’t come out in public and be in the public eye in regards to this story.

On May 21, another vigil will be held in New York City in front of MSNBC, which is being organized by retired JAG lawyer and legal analyst Gwendolyn Lindsay Jackson.

Jackson told Pacifica that she felt compelled to do whatever she can to help Ling and Lee return home safe and return home soon.

Jackson: I just really feel for these families and I feel for these women, because they can’t be forgotten. Commonsense would tell you that if you forget about somebody it doesn’t go away if you sweep it under the rug. Clearly if efforts were being made behind the scenes during the height of the scare with the North Koreans launching that rocket a few weeks ago, well that’s already happened, its done, things should have moved on by now. The longer this drags on, the more worrisome it becomes for me, as a human being.

For Pacifica Radio in Berkeley, I’m Josh Wolf

It’s been more than two weeks since Euna Lee and Laura Ling were detained by North Korea and it now appears that they will stand trial for a charge that faces up to a ten year sentence, but Al Gore’s cable network Current hasn’t said a word. Numerous journalists have called, myself included, but I haven’t even found a single recent report where Current has even responded with, “no comment.”

The network has also been censoring any posts in it’s online community that discuss the situation, as reported here:

http://joshwolf.net/blog/?p=399
http://tinyurl.com/cvxgfn
http://twitter.com/DeliaTheArtist/statuses/1366174843

That last link is a tweet from last Sunday, which would indicate Current has been scrubbing their site for more than a week.

I understand that it is a sensitive situation, made doubly so by the fact that a former Vice President is involved, but at this point any hopes Current may have had to resolve this before it became an “international incident,” have long since passed the point of reason, and their attempts to silence their own community about what’s going on with two of their reporters is appeasement to North Korea’s demands at best, and at worst, it’s 1984 playing out in real time — though admittedly current is a private news station and Al Gore isn’t a government official, anymore.

As the SF Weekly pointed out on a blog last week, typically when a reporter is kidnapped — arrested for committing journalism — or just finds themselves in a crisis situation while working, the news agency will immediately release a statement of some sort acknowledging the situation and often sending good wishes. In some cases, reporters will be dispatched to uncover why it happened and what is likely to happen in the future. Maybe even get reaction from it’s audience — we are talking web 2.0 after all.

But instead Current TV has remained silent leaving who knows how many phone calls unreturned while they work to erase any mention of the situation from their site.

There may be a good reason that Current hasn’t commented on the situation, perhaps some tentative secret agreement has been reached with North Korea, I don’t know.

At this point I have my doubts, but even still, the very least they can do is give me a call to tell me, “For reasons which cannot be addressed at this time, Current not have any comment regarding the question you have asked.”

To go just one small step further in the spirit of honest communication they can put a disclaimer on their site that says: “Some content on the site is being held due to concerns that we can’t talk about right now. Don’t worry, you’re stuff isn’t gone, and we’ll unhide as much of it as we can, just as soon as we can.”

They could also start returning media calls with a ‘no comment,’ and offer to send them an e-mail as soon as the company issues a statement or is ready to talk.

The last thing I want to do is jeopardize the safe and immediate return of Ling and Lee, but I feel that Current should be held accountable for their complete inability to address this pressing situation.

Update: As it turns out, both of my posts are still listed as being under review and it likely was removed from my control panel at that point in time.

Within minutes of posting this and a companion video on Current.com, it was flagged with this message: This item is under review, so it has been temporarily hidden. So I am posting it here for everyone to read.

Late Monday evening I posted a plea for Current TV to publicly address the fact that two of their reporters are to stand trial in North Korea where they have been detained for two weeks.

By Tuesday morning my entry had been flagged by Current and was inaccessible to the public, but was still viewable from my own profile. The video is now gone from even my control panel. No letter saying that I had violated terms of service, no e-mail even confirming that they had removed the post.

Just gone. Poof. As if it never happened at all. As if Winston Smith personally had erased it from history.

I’m sure it happens in China every day. It is the sort of thing that happens in — North Korea. but when its happening at a US news outlet. Without any acknowledgment that the post had been excised from the system, I get scared and so should you.

If former Vice President Al Gore’s cable outlet is not only willing to purport some false reality where everything is business-as-usual — despite the jailing of two of their reporters — but also to silence any efforts by its community to discuss this frightening, but news worthy, event, then Current might as well set up shop in North Korea where journalism and the suppression of information go hand in hand.

My original post the Current wiped out

It’s been more than a week since two Current employees were detained by the North Korean government while allegedly filming from the Chinese border, and yet current.com has no mention of their situation. Today the news media reported that both journalists will face trial for illegal entry into the country and still no response from Current.

I understand why there may have been an effort to downplay the incident in the hopes that it would bring back the safe return of your reporters, but it hasn’t and it doesn’t seem like there’s any real reason to pretend it isn’t happening. And yet, a quick visit to Current.com display’s no indication about what’s going on.

Please Current, show some backbone and make a public stand for your incarcerated reporters. It is your duty as a news outlet to report on this issue, but it is also your duty as their employers to stand in solidarity and offer your support.

Thanks.

Josh

I’m not the kind of guy who likes to call the cops. In fact, I’ll do everything I can to settle my disputes without involving the police. You could even say I was sent to prison to avoid getting involved — we’ll get to that later.

But when I was mugged by Terrell Tramell, 28, Feb. 4, just after 1 a.m., in the Lower Haight neighborhood of San Francisco, I felt like the only choice I had was to call the police.

I first met Trammell in 2006 while I was inmate number 98005-011 at the Dublin Federal Detention Center. He was number 92544-011, but everyone called him “Rail,” or “Rell.”

I was sent to prison by Federal Judge William Alsup after I refused to testify before a Federal Grand Jury about the identities and activities of protesters I had covered for my video blog and for refusing to surrender my video outtakes. I was held in contempt of court for 226 days and was released after publishing the video. I did not have to testify.

Rail was at FDC Dublin for violating the terms of his probation. I don’t know what he was accused of doing, but he wasn’t there very long. But early the next year he returned to Dublin on another violation. There were only two people that I had any problems with while I was incarcerated, and I was frequently harassed by Rail for no apparent reason while we were both incarcerated. He was most recently released Nov. 7, and I have seen him in my neighborhood several times in the past few months.

Up until last week, I had thought that things were civil between us. After so many short casual conversations, I honestly didn’t expect that he would attack me that night. Less than 15 minutes before the attack we had been talking at Volare’s Pizza after I returned to the city for a late dinner. We chatted about the local pizza spots, Greg Anderson (Barry Bond’s personal trainer that was also detained for civil contempt at FDC Dublin while we were both there), and even our respective occupations. He was “working right now,” he said.

As I walked home carrying the box of pizza in one hand and two sodas in the other, I heard Rail call from across the street, “Got a light?”

Being the kind of person that I am I awkwardly fished out a lighter from my pocket as he crossed the street. But when I went to hand him the lighter I was greeted with a punch to the face and the pizza went flying.

I lost my glasses and called out for help, as a quick series of jabs to the face continued. But my cries for help were only greeted by a friend of his I had first seen at the pizza place coming to his aid. I fell to the ground asking, “What do you want?” as I began to wonder if this was a robbery or simply a beating. The punches became kicks. I shielded my face.

“Let’s go,” said the friend as the kicks continued.

Rail then grabs me by the jacket and reaches into my inner pocket where he had most likely seen me place my iPhone after I received a call at the pizza place. He grabs my left pocket, where my car and house keys are being kept. He tears the pocket, but in the runs away with his friend.

Blood squirting from my nose, heart pounding, I lie on the ground for a moment collecting myself as I watch the feet of my two assailants dart away.

“That was my dinner,” I thought to myself as I stood up and saw the pizza splattered across the sidewalk.

A neighbor opens her door and steps out to ask if there’s anything she can do to help.

“Got a phone?” I ask.

She returns a moment later with a cell phone in hand. I dial 911. She notices the blood and comes back with a wet washcloth.

A few minutes later the police arrive. I flag them down with the bloody washcloth as if I am hailing a cab. An ambulance arrives later.

Several more cops arrive.

“Which way did they go?” one officer asks. They speed away in pursuit of a vague description of two young black males.

The officers ask me in the ambulance to tell them what I know. I give them a full description and explain how I know one of the men that attacked me, but cannot recall either his real name or even his alias. I tell the paramedics that I don’t need to go to the hospital.

I’m handed two pieces of paper. One of them has a case number written on it and the phone number for the robbery department circled. The other slip has the number for the city’s crime victim’s assistance program.

The moment I sit down in my kitchen, the name “Rail” returns to my memory and I pick up the phone to call the robbery department. But the number is only in service during regular business hours and it just rings and rings.

So I call the Central District, and speak to someone who explains that the crime occurred in the Northern District. When I ring up Northern, I am told that nobody can deal with the case at this time and that I will have to wait until 9 a.m. and talk to Robbery.

When I call Robbery, I am told that unless there are witnesses, and I, as the victim, don’t count, that the District Attorney won’t prosecute. He implies that it’s unlikely anyone will be following up on the case, despite the fact that I tell him I know who did it and the name his known by on the street.

Discouraged, I leave a message at the District Attorney’s office, talk to someone at the Mayor’s office and leave a message for my County Supervisor, Ross Mirkarimi.

That night I get a call from a detective that tells me he knows who I am talking about and says that he will prepare a photo lineup so that I can identify the guy the next day. Later on that night, I find out more about Rail than I ever wanted to know, including the fact that we’re neighbors.

Having half a mind to tell the police to forget the whole situation, I’m forced to ponder my options.

If I press charges, then Rail will likely try to retaliate as soon as he’s released. But if I do nothing then I am likely to be perceived as a chump and it’s only so long until I’m forced to deal with him again.

Had this happened in prison, the appropriate response would have been to talk to the black shot-caller and let ‘his people’ take care of the situation; anything else would likely erupt in a race riot.

But it happened on the streets where things aren’t black and white. And I wasn’t looking for retribution.

I would’ve liked to have just walked away, bruised and beaten, but ready to write it off as a very bad day.

I’m not in the game. But our worlds had collided, and simply hoping he’d leave me alone didn’t seem like a smart idea.

There’s a reason you don’t mug people that know you. Especially ones that live in your neighborhood. It makes things complicated.

And leaves me without out a whole lot of options.

I’m not the kind of guy who likes to call the cops.

But after hearing from a mutual acquaintance that Rail was unwilling to offer his assurances that I wouldn’t have any more problems, I felt I had no choice but to point to his photo when the detective showed me the line-up.

Terrell Trammell has since been charged with robbery and is being held at 850 Bryant Street. He is not eligible for bail because he is on federal probation.

NOTE: A version of this essay first appeared in the Feb. 16 edition of the Daily Post where I am a staff writer covering San Mateo County.

© zoriah/www.zoriah.com

Zoriah has a gift for photography. I first came across his work last night, and immediately felt the impact. But even before I was moved by his images, I was blown away by his story.

As an embedded journalist in Iraq, Zoriah has been traveling with the multi-national forces and covering the occupation first-hand. On June 26 he witnessed the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing that left several dozen people dead.

Zoriah writes:

We are searching homes for weapons and information regarding Al Qaeda in Iraq, when a message comes over the radio. “We have one killed in actions (KIA), and two wounded in action (WIA)…”

We grab our gear, throwing on our body armor, Kevlar helmets, gloves, goggles, and other proactive gear as we run out of the house…

I have nearly 70lbs. (31kg.) of equipment strapped to my body and, although I am in good physical shape, I feel the heat burning my lungs every time I inhale. We see people running down the street in panic.

The soldier who is running next to me glances onto the pavement at the same time as I do. There is an ear on the ground. About five feet away, we see a chunk of scalp with hair on a palm sized piece of skull. We look at each other, realizing that we are walking into true madness …and this is just the beginning.

During the next few minutes, Zoriah documents the carnage snapping as quickly as he can. Before long he is ordered out of the area, but not before capturing at least two images of a Marine that had been killed in the attack.

On June 30, several days after the attack, Zoriah uploads his images and his account of the event to his blog.

By July 1, he had been removed from his assignment by the US Marine Corps:

1 July, 2008: The U.S. Marine Corps terminated my embed because they claimed I broke a rule by posting images to my blog that depicted killed or injured Marines. By the time they realized that was not actually a rule, I had already been pulled away from my Platoon in Garma/Karmah.

© zoriah/www.zoriah.com

Zoriah has provided a PDF of the Media Hold Harmless Agreement he signed before reporting as an embed. In the contract, it states the media will be allowed to photograph US casualties provided that certain conditions are met, and I do not see any evidence that Zoriah violated those policies.

(11) Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties
provided the following conditions are adhered to:

(a) Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or
identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not
be released without the service member’s prior written
consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule
11(b) applies.

(b) DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family
members, names or images clearly identifying individuals
“killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next
ot kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of
KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been
made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for
those announcements.

At this point in time, it is unclear whether he will be able to resume documenting the war as an embedded journalist. Zoriah has indicated that he would likely be unable to cover the war as freelance journalist if he is denied the opportunity to continue his embed work.

I have referred Zoriah to the The First Amendment Project (FAP), a team of lawyers who provided extraordinary pro-bono legal support for me after I found myself incarcerated for civil-contempt in 2006. I do not know at this time whether Zoriah has a potential suit or if he will be seeking representation from FAP.

© zoriah/www.zoriah.com

Not surprisingly, Zoriah’s blog has quickly been populated with comments spanning a gambit of opinions. Some support his decision to publish the photographs, and his refusal to remove them. Other’s respectfully disagree and still others have unleashed a poisonous venom so dark you’d think that Zoriah was the bomber who killed the Marines. Many of the comments suggest that Zoriah is not a “real journalist.”

Reading the feedback on his site, I was reminded of some of the very comments that appeared on my own blog while incarcerated. In both situations, the response was mixed and our status as “journalists” was called into question.

At an automotive repair shop, I told the manager about Zoriah and his first reaction was that it was wrong for him to publish the images of the Marines. He became defensive and his American pride began to rise to the surface. After I asked him why photos of dead Iraqis is any different he stopped, really began to think, and the defenses melted away. We had a long conversation, and were both able to look at the situation from a number of perspectives.

I think that if those who are leaving critical comments had a chance to look Zoriah in the eye and talk to him about why he did what he did, they too would grow to understand his perspective.

That’s the problem.

© zoriah/www.zoriah.com

For many people, Zoriah and his blog are not real. They are part of the virtual world that can include radio, television and the internet. For these people, rather than inspiring critical thinking, the media provokes a reaction, and reactions are rarely well reasoned.

Of course, identifying the problem is only the first step, and this is just one many problems, but what solutions to this particular issue are out there?

Please share your thoughts by leaving a comment.

It’s almost 2:00 AM, and I have to get up in less than 5 hours to move my car before street cleaning begins. That and I also have an appointment to get an oil change and inspection at 8AM.

The past week has been intense.

On Wednesday afternoon, I was offered a job as a reporter at the Palo Alto Daily Post, and today was my first day. In that interval, I somehow managed to get a car, and insurance (there’s a whole lot more as well, but I won’t bore you with the details).

If the haters who said I wasn’t a real journalist, are still lurking. I hope you don’t have too much indigestion after eating your words.