Welcome to 1984 pt 2

so a crazy man with a webcam is now a reporter? every out of control looney who screams and accuses and generally rants is now a pillar of the free speech battle against corporate media?

Did you look at infowars.com?
They are the typical New World Order conspiracy nuts focusing on the secret society leader's occult and devil worshipping activities at BOHEMIAN GROVE. While the paranoia critique is interesting as far as it goes, these guys are idiots.

John, what he represented (which by the way, he was there representing wearechange.org, not infowars) is irrelevent. He had official press credentials, permission to be there, and was arrested for asking a question. Or do you really think that charging someone with trespassing and espionage is a reasonable reaction to being asked about a specific statement that you made?

"Freedom to Fascism reporter Samuel Ettaro was also dragged out after asking a question on Giuliani's ties with Cintra and Macquerie, two foreign contractors involved with the contentious Trans-Texas Corridor under development in Texas.

The entire incident took place in a large press auditorium, apart from the debate stages where authorized media were able to question candidates and their handlers."

This occurred inside, in an area both reporters had permission to be in.

" http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/29/206666.aspx

Liss, the above link has more background on the question.

The statement they were referring to is from a phoner Giuliani had with Jennings. “We set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street which was right there with the police commissioner and the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told the World Trade Center was going to collapse.” "

"Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference."

I included that essay for the videos, not for its factual accuracy. I have read conflicting reports about which site he was representing. And like I said, who he was representing is irrelevent since he was there with permission and proper credentials.

I have totally seen mainstream reporters with mainstream views be far more aggressive than that guy, regardless of whether he's a nutjob (and I am not convinced he is, sorry). I think this is incredibly fucked up. He had a press pass. It would be one thing if they just tossed him, but he's sitting in jail for trespassing? Because his questions made some scum bag a little peeved? He was arrested because Guiliani's press secretary didn't like his questions. Period.

Having just watched the video, I stand by my statement that they are idiots. The whole thing seems like a staged ambush. My thinking is that they went in there to cause a scene and hopefully bring the hammer down. There are bigger issues of censorship than some idiots yelling for answers about the coverment cover-up and explosives placed in the twin towers. I am surprised not to have heard, "Where is the plane sir, the one that hit the pentagon?"

They were not arrested or tresspassed for asking a question, they were tresspassed and arrested for engaging in yelling antics and wild speculations and badgering. Basically, they threw a temper tantrum because their conspirarcy theories were ignored and dismissed. Politicans NEVER answer questions, that is the nature of politics. Yet these morons are practically hopping up and down at the prospect of "not getting an answer."

I'm sorry, but a press pass does not mean that you get to stay somewhere you have been asked to leave. The incident was a big enough to warrent police involvement, once they tell you to leave, you need to leave regardless of your passes, invitations or other waviers of access.

There are two issues in play here. One is the message was the question, the conspiracy theory accusation is a complete non-starter, it will always be dismissed. Bringing it up discredits the speaker, or at least relegates one to the front row at Star Trek convention, where the question you pose to Red Shirt No.2 begins with an episode number and air date's inconsistencies with the following episode.

Second, there is a certain level of decorum that is expected when the press engages the stage actors of our national political drama. While improv is not unheard of, there are rules and structure. Antics of alt-press fanboys or a comedic documentary film makers (a la michael moore) are refreshing because they jab at the stiff, stuffy world of inside voices and trying not to interrupt one another. A disruption of this sort is meant to call attention to the issue at hand or the person pointing the mocking finger at "the process."

But what these fellows were not kicked out for asking the question, they were not even kicked out for badgering, they were kicked out for a failure in decorum, for a slimey unacceptance that they needed to stand down. They had gotten their non-answers, they had put in the face time, and yet the floor show had to continue because the footage was not exciting enough. It did not point to the cover-up, official denial, and all the persecution (self-brought on) that will generate the attention and ire to further fuel the flames of their ever-growing maze of conspiracy convolutions.

They were allowed access, they even got to pose their questions over and over, they, also, choose to make a spectacle of those facts.

I think this Matt Lepacek was on to something. Something BIG.

But I guess we'll never find out.

The Truth is out there, though. Don't you worry about that.

I started to write another comment about this yesterday, but didn't want to open myself up to ridicule. But I changed my mind, so:

First and foremost, after watching that video a few times I still don't see how the reporter's actions warranted arrest. Sure he may have lacked decorum and it is understandable that the organizers of the event may have wanted him to leave. But it looks like he is cooperating with the cops who showed up seconds after he started "hopping up and down at the prospect of 'not getting an answer.'" As soon as the cops show up he starts backing away with them, so I still don't understand why he was arrested. Do you really think he would have been arrested if the reporter was from NBC and was exerting the same amount of aggression about getting an answer about a safer issue?

The fact of the matter is that that there are a LOT of people, especially in New York, who really believe that the government was complicit in the terror attacks of 9/11. And a lot of them are not crazy. If your government will lie to you over and over again to justify going around the world to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, what's to stop them from killing a couple of thousand of its own people to provide the impetus and justification for the war? Especially when doing so has proved to reap HUGE political and financial benefits for so many? Obviously it is not the most logical conclusion to draw, but there are a lot of questions that still surround the issue, not least of which is the unexplained collapse of WTC7. I don't believe this shit, but I understand how others could. It doesn't require a huge conspiracy, just some covert operatives obeying a fascist government.

What bothers politicians about the question the reporter asks is that they don't want the public to be given the opportunity to hear that there are citizens who believe that their government is capable of killing its own people. Politicians and mainstream media will go to any length to stop this point of view from being aired in public. Isn't this an important message? Doesn't exposing more of the public to these ideas deserve to be commended?

And maybe I give infowars and prisonplanet a bit too much credit, but I don't think that they necessarily believe the conspiracy theories they write about. I've always seen them as disseminating counter misinformation. Fighting insane lies that justify mass murder with insane allegations that expose fascists as fascists. Although that could just be the conspiracy theorist in me creating a conspiracy to explain the conspiracy theories.

And, if you are correct about this being more theater than an actual attempt at journalism (which sounds about right), so what? Ever see the movie Yes Men about those guys who impersonated WTO officials and went around the world giving interviews and ridiculous lectures to the international business community and academia to expose the WTO for what it is? They put years of effort and thousands of dollars into to funding their subversion. Their approach perhaps had a bit of a more artistic flair, but you know what? This little stunt has probably gotten just as many people talking about the police state that we currently find ourselves in as the Yes Men's stunt got talking about the negatives of the WTO...

The only guess I have as to why he was arrested, after watching the video again, is that he was pointed out as the one causing the disturbance.

From what the other dude says at the end, "They tried to arrest me, but I wouldn't let them" I am not sure he has any understanding of what actually went on. Therefore is an unreliable narrator.

I say this because once the police have been told to get someone out of an area, or to trespass someone, then the only option that individual has is to leave or get arrested. There is rarely any wiggle room for negotiation, if ever.

My suspicion is that he got lippy or refused to leave for this reason or that. Then he was facing what the police call "stacking charges" - resisting arrest, etc.

If this is the police state, so be it.

What I have seen in working with the public, this happens most often when a person is highly agitated, tried to bargain their way into staying to prove what they claim to be "the injustice" or "singled out persecution" for being asked to leave. The bargain lists any number of reasons other than the particular disturbance they are actually guilty of creating. And its litany of delaying excuses is not tolerated by cops.

I do not for a second buy the argument that Matt was arrested for asking questions. He was arrested for not complying with the police. One of the reasons, Micheal Moore is not arrested is that his most confrontational footage is always of him leaving the building, etc.

And, if you are correct about this being more theater than an actual attempt at journalism (which sounds about right), so what?

This is exactly my point. If it is theater, than what difference does this really make? If they went in with the thought of being asked to leave or causing a commotion, than fine. But to try then to rile up the indie-press crowd with indignation about censorship, press passes, etc is an incredible waste of energy for it is a complete non-starter. A non-starter because it has nothing to do with journalism, the police state, or fascism.

While I agree that the stunt was worthwhile, but only as a stunt. If it presses the conspiracy into the faces of the press secretary of the Guiliani campaign that serves a subversive purpose. One, ultimately, exploited by the other conspiracy windbags, like Bill O'Reilly.

The event also has a purpose of fueling the conspiracy's legitimacy and complicating the labyrinth from which the easy answers of culpability and the seamless garment of political machinations and well oiled plots of foreknowledge and launched missiles.

But would we be having this conversation if the question that was not answered was, "Why were there no Jews in the WTC on 9/11? Sir? Answer the question, sir? Who warned the Jews?"

The events of 9/11 are destined to play out with a wider, more dramatic flair in the public imagination than any other supposed government conspiracy. JFK, Ghetto Crack, Arms for Hostages, 1948 Roswell - all pale in the smoking craters of the World Trade Towers.

Exasperated by the very real, transparent and brutally frank subversions, power grabs and other roll back of constitutional progressivism that this Bush Administration has orchestrated after the terror attacks.

If the energy put into researching and replaying google video to see the shadow of a hint of a prepared missile under the wing puffing out at the moment of impact, were put into keeping up a sustained critique of what is actually happening now - there might actually be a viable, effective alternative.

What if the question posed to Guilani was something about his city policies that displaced the homeless, put video cameras in Washington square, criminalized porn, and allowed tax abatements to for huge corporate stores to colonize and homogenize Times Square (let alone the whole City, thus driving smaller businesses out), or the heightened levels of police brutality and corruption during his mayoral tenure?

Would not any single one of those questions be tougher, more relevant, and based in a fact instead of speculative fictions?

You are totally being duped by the Powers That Be.

Who are obviously shape-shifting Reptilians bent on world domination.

your precious SCIENTOLOGY is a cult, todd.

A CULT!

Todd is boring now that he only posts "witty" non-responses. I want some earnest responses out of you, mister.

R.John makes many excellent points throughout this thread, but in the end I am unconvinced by his position that the "reporter" should have been arrested. The critique of the "reporter", the stunt, and the whole theatrics of the modern political-press dance is spot on. But the "reporter" wasn't escorted out of the building {as he would have been in the past], he was arrested and charged. That is a big deal because of what it means for independent media. Unlike mainstream media outlets, indie media and their freelance representatives can rarely afford the legal fees that are going to be generated in similar situations. OK, yeah, escort the crackpots out of the building who refuse to play along with the charade. But arresting reporters, even fringe reporters, can have a chilling deterent effect overall, and that is not good. And, R.John, your quip that if this is a "police state, then so be it" is simply too glib.

I am sorry if I came off defending the arrest. I did not mean to imply that the situation was fair, justified or even warranted. The Guilani press secretary was/is a right bastard whom I would have had a hard time not yelling at as well. Smug son of allah's whores.

But I can understand the arrest as potentially stemming from an overanxious (instead of over-zealous) police force. My opinions of how situations esculate and spin out-of-control has been greatly informed by the insanity of working in a public space that is very often just a hotbed of crazies. Loonies waiting to spin out of control.

as to the "police state then so be it" quip, I meant it in the context of a situation that has gotten completely out of hand. If a person who has been asked to stop a behavior, refuses to stop that behavior than I DO support the police in arresting that person. Civil disobedience included. I, like Thoreau, would spend a night in jail if need be...

I agree that the chilling effect is there. I, also, agree that there are more obstacles now for the indie press than ever before, I just do not see how this case exemplifies them.

Are we even sure this jamoke got arrested? Sure, on the video, we hear people say he was arrested, but there's nothing to indicate he actually was.

I can see how to some folks being dragged out of a room by police must be a logical prelude to arrest, but it does not necessarily follow that independent-crackpot-media-boy was arrested.

Can someone find the arrest report on The Smoking Gun or some shit? I'm too lazy to do it myself. Thanks.