LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4028 posts, RR: 31 Posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2555 times:
This is a quite long but very well-written and interesting account of one journalist's experience with security at LAX. He was doing a story on the new security and was taking pictures of the screening area when he was harrassed by a National Guardsman and ordered to destroy the photos he'd just taken.
After he went through all that, he got on a Southwest flight, but ended up being taken back off, having his ticket refunded and told that he couldn't fly Southwest for the rest of the evening.
The reporter followd up on everything and found out why the National Guardsman really wanted to have the photos destroyed.
Clipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
All jounalists should get this kind of teatment. He says he is a journalist, yet he has no press credentials. Nice Job LAX! Nice job Southwest! Nice job National Guard! Nice job Los Angeles police!
This clown was probably pushing his so called weight around and being rude like most of the press these days. No sympathy from me!
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
I'm sorry. This guy has a legitimate beef with the Guard. His rights were violated. There was no probable cause other than a single guard member being annoyed by his picture being taken. It's an abuse of power/authority.
I know the press can be annoying...that's part of the price we pay for being a free country (you know..all that First Amendment stuff).
I don't believe he has a claim (I have a collegue who believes he does, however).
OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Someone just had their rights violated.
Freelance journalists should have some sort of press credentials for reasons like this, but even passengers and regular joes are allowed to take pictures (barring the restrictions mentioned in the article). Heck, I've done it. The thing with Southwest was a little odd though. It's totally rude and out of line. They go on a PR campaign to get people to fly again, but they give that sort of treatment? I'm confused.
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 680 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
Consider this; Your a member of the National Guiard, which means that your a member of a reserve unit called to active duty. You have a regular job, a family and all the "trappings" of American life. Suddenly your called to protect American property and American lives right here in America from real and dangerous threats. You watch the news media almost kill each other trying to get scoop reports on what secret stuff our government is doing to protect its citizens, without a thought to the fact that by reporting this information, most of the advantage goes away. We saw a CNN report that the Kitty Hawk was moving into the area off of Pakistan without its aircraft, probably for helicopter duty with US Rangers. We were told that US Rangers were on the ground in Northern Afganistan. We are shown all the ways reporters have been able to sneek through security. This is information that the public "needs" to know. It doesn't matter how much risk it places the military in, selling copy is more important. And as you are standing in this airport, worried that you may be the one who either misses the next terrorist or gets killed by him, this yahoo starts taking you picture for all of the world to see. Your risking your life and your family's furture for this country, and the press is ready to put more risk on you just so they can sell more papers and come off as self rightous protectors of us all while causing more trouble. I would have done alot more than confiscate his pictures. Free press without responsability is useless.
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Excellent article, very well-written. Permit me to make some comments:
1) this is the classic argument for, at least, federalizing the oversight of airport security screening. There are too many differences from airport-to-airport, and for that matter, from airline-to-airline within an airport. Their magnetometers can be set up differently (some more sensitive than others), I know that certain items containing metal (beepers, rings, belt buckles, etc) can make through some metal detectors, yet not through others. There needs to be a uniformity, a standardization if you will, of the entire screening process, from the personnel to equipment to sensitivity of equipment to oversight and regulation.
2) from what I see in his article, he does have a case for harassment. I can sort of see a reason for the National Guard's reaction (being their first day on the job being the primary one), but they may have gone a little overboard.
Tom in NO (at MSY)
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
Aztec01 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 147 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
He didn't deserve to have his first amendment rights abridged when he was engaged in his professional and (by the way) legal activities. Granted, these are extraordinary times, but the last I heard, the Bill of Rights had not been suspended.
PSU_DTW_SCE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1956 times:
OK, Here is a problem I have with the media:
"The Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 sighed as its wheels kissed the Los Angeles International Airport tarmac. Flight 1206 out of Sacramento taxied to the gate, and my fellow passengers and I released our white-knuckle grips on the foam-covered armrests of our seats. No one’s throat had been slit. We hadn’t flown into a skyscraper. We’d made it, safely, much to our collective relief."
WE DON'T NEED CLIPS LIKE THAT PUBLISHED!!
Media is supposed to be factual not opinionated. It seems as if the media is sensationalizing America's fear and in some ways trying to impose other's fears on to everyone. The media would like you to believe everyone in this nation is afraid, when in reality it is the minority. When it is in the public's best interest to not be afraid, we don't need statements like the above published that are a gross overaction to reality.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6470 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
It doesn't matter if the reporter said that the airplne "tenderly caressed the runway with its extended gear in a loving fashion". That isn't the point. I agree his writing isn't the best. What matters is that we, in the USA, have the beginnings of a police state. Not a good thing.
I am glad I was around to fly before de-regulation.
Ironminds From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 556 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
OK, PSU-DTW-SCE, you want the media to be factual. Well, what was non-factual about that story?
You seem to not understand that that was not a news report (i.e. "A local reporter was held for questioning today....") but rather a first person account of something that happened to him. There is room in newspapers and magazines for that sort of thing, and for opinion pieces as well. (Pick up a newspaper and open it sometime; you may encounter such things). If anything, the quote you print above serves to reduce fear by saying that indeed nothing happened, despite all the hassle given to him by security. In other words, security worked for that flight (and all others since 9/11) and nothing happened. But you seem to have such a blind hatred for the media -- which sure as hell makes its share of mistakes -- that it seems like you'd be happy to just ditch the first amendment and let the government give us our news.
Oscar2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
It is against FAA regulations to photograph the security checkpoint with a still camera. The media can use is for a background with a live video camera but no one is allowed to take still photos of the checkpoint.
Ironminds From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 556 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Great! So let's spend a little money, put a sign up by every security checkpoint, and ask that national guard guys not take out their petty frustrations on passengers by having them pulled off of flights for asking questions.
When your constitutional right to know what you're being accused of is considered suspicious behavior, you're in trouble.
This is why we shouldn't federalize security: jerks like this weekend warrior are a lot harder to fire.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
I agree with his first ammendment rights etc.....
but he should have made it known what he was doing there prior to photographing. I work for a newspaper where I had to photograph The National Guard at the airport. I called the airport, got the cell phone number of the commander and got everybody on the same page....
Look, This is a very difficult, different time for all. Yes, I understand first ammendment and yes I understand wanting to be a neutral factor, but these are extraordinary times that call for smart decision making from a Press person.
Ironminds From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 556 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
As a journalist myself, I think you're right about calling ahead, etc, and that would saved a lot of grief.
But I am seriously distubed by some of the responses on this thread that seem to act like the enemy. Come on, guys, it's the enemy who are supposed to be against freedom, not us! This guy was hardly revealing special forces positions.
Flyinghighboy From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
He maybe should have asked before photographing but damm it's his job. The guard went overboard and we all know it. Though what is strange is about the Southwest flight, why he wasn't allowed to fly for the evening.
: As a person "slightly" familiar with FAA regs, could you please point those of us with less knowledge to the FAR you refer to?
: >>it's his job.why he wasn't allowed to fly for the evening.
: Weekend warriors!!! heehee Watch the movie First Blood (1982), the original Rambo--they're hilarious.
: Personally, the story sounds fishy, exaggerated, and sensationalized, so its hard for me to believe it 100%. I'm definitely taking it with a grain of
: Okay, all this talk about "rights" sort of brings up an overlooked point.... What about the rights of the individuals whose pictures he had taken.....
: If you're in a public space and get photographed...you're pretty much screwed...it's the legal equivalent of public domain. So don't be hangin' out at
: "Public domain"....I don't think that would apply to federalized National Guardsmen (and Guardswomen) in the conduct of their military duties.