TV sues city over tornado
By Brian Kirwin | May 5, 2008
Filed Under Media |
Wanna hear the biggest hunk of baloney since Bill Clinton last spoke? Read this.
WTKR sued Suffolk today because they thought they needed more access to the destruction scenes of the tornado. Suffolk’s limited access, get this, “hampers the ability of charitable groups to identify needs and give help.” Yeah…that’s what they were worried about.
“WTKR also contends that its viewership may suffer if its news crews are not able to timely and fully report the news.” Viewership may suffer? How much worst than last place can they do?
Comments
16 Responses to “TV sues city over tornado”
Leave a Reply
Podcast: Virginia Politics On-Demand-
Convention Coverage Sponsors
BlogNetNews Del. John Cosgrove Del. Tim Hugo Ms. Thelma and Ms. Rosie Gilbert Del. Sal Iaquinto Mr. Patrick Salyer Del. Terrie Suit Mr. Amit Singh
Your donation of $50 will ensure conservative, local coverage of the convention and list you as an official sponsor.
-
What is Bearing Drift?
Bearing Drift was established in 2004. The name comes from the relative motion of objects at sea. If there is no bearing drift, and the distance between you and the object is closing, there will be a collision; therefore, action must be taken. Most navigational rules say to avoid collision, turn to starboard -- the right!
- Jeffersoniad
- badrose
- Bearing Drift
- Below The Beltway
- CatHouse Chat
- Conservativa
- Contemporary Conservative
- Crystal Clear Conservative
- Deo Vindice
- Good Sense
- J's Notes
- Leslie Carbone
- On The Spot
- Rappahannock Red
- Reagan's GOP
- Rick Sincere News & Thoughts
- Right-Wing Liberal
- Scott's Morning Brew
- Shaun Kenney
- Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Skeptical Observer
- Virginia Podcasting Network
-
Support Bearing Drift!
Get your BD gear from CafePress:
Brian (I got it right this time J.R.)
If the press is excluded from emergency areas, what prevents the government from declaring every area of interest an emergency area and excluding press coverage?
In the interests of our Republic, I think it is necessary to have a free press. Having a free press includes having free access.
Allowing the press to be excluded for legitimate reasons increases the risk that the press will be excluded at some time in the future for illegimate reasons.
Except the reasons WTKR gave for the lawsuit were (a) lost ratings, and (b) hindering non-profit organizations from seeing the pictures of destroyed homes.
Not exactly “the interests of the Republic” at stake.
Brian,
I might not support the access of WTKR for the reasons they gave, but I will support their access for the reasons I gave.
They had access. It just wasn’t for as long of a time that they wanted.
Ok, so then you are in favor of limited access by the press?
I’m not in favor of that. I realize free access results in circuses that I dislike, but I just have to deal with the circus for the good of the Republic.
I’ll tell ya, if my home was destroyed, and some tv crew wanted to film my tragedy, they’d also have to film my wholesale kicking their asses.
We filed an injunction against the city of Suffolk. The Police Department is clearly violating Virginia Statute which has special provisions during times of natural disasters. The code specifically addresses news media being allowed in such areas as long as we assume liability for our own safety and do not impede emergency responders. Officers told our reporters they were keeping us out to ‘keep these people’s homes from being on TV.’ They were not keeping us out for safety reasons. Power and Natural Gas were shut off from these neighborhoods minutes after the tornado ripped through. In fact, anyone with a hardhat and construction gear was let through, but the media. This is a blatant disregard of State Law. The police might not like us there, but we have a right to be there. In fact, we met NO RESIDENT who wanted us out. They wanted us there to get their story out. We are not going on private property but public streets. We are clearly fighting for the rights of a free, independent and vigorous press. As far as the suing for damages, as soon as I heard that in court, I ordered our attorneys to drop that. I honestly was unaware the attorneys added damages to this petition. This has NOTHING to do with damages. I was appalled at that and am still quite shocked that would be part of the petition. We never asked for that and never would ask for that in a First Amendment petition.
Thank you,
Shane Moreland
News Director
WTKR, Newschannel 3
Norfolk, VA
Shane, I hate to break it to you, but I got the story about the tornado in Suffolk just fine.
Shane, I hate to break it to you, but nobody watches Channel 3 anymore.
Shane,
Well-stated and thanks for making the points.
Did any of the other stations face similar issues and, if so, are they part of the law suit?
If not, why didn’t they have the same problems, yet seemed to still fully cover the story and get important and vital information out to the public?
Cynics will say this is a publicity stunt by WTKR; I can think of one of them who writes on this blog.
Again, I think it’s fantastic that you came on to give the WTKR perspective. Thanks.
I am for unfettered access of the press.
If we can have imbedded access of journalists in Iraq, we can have free access to disaster areas here in America by members of the press.
I think Shane covered just about all the bases with: “as long as we assume liability for our own safety and do not impede emergency responders”.
I value freedom of the press (and bloggers) too highly to be anything but liberal on this issue.
And if Brian Kirwin assaulted one of the members of the press when they filmed his house I think he should be arrested. Perhaps he does not need to serve time in prison for his offense, he only needs to serve probation to get his attention.
Way to go, David. Put the rights of ratings-hungry camerahogs ahead of the right to privacy of a private citizen.
As long as I can see it from a public street, I wouldn’t call into question the rights to privacy.
As a private citizen, I might not have the rights to travel down the public street to gawk due to the problems of safety and security (we’ve got to prevent looting). However if the rights of the press are going to be denied, then we have a bigger problem.
Brian Kirwin, what limits on the Free Press are you in favor of? If they are to be denied the rights to cover the catastrophe in Suffolk, what other things will you agree should be denied them?
Free press means free press. It means they are free to cover and report upon even those things we disagree with.
They seemed to cover it just fine. Did you not know it happened?
[…] has dropped their battle to defend the Constitution and 1st amendment rights. I lambasted them here, but there’s more…. News Director Shane Moreland - Monday “We are clearly […]
what a piece of crap! for people who were stranded with family members or in shelters and were longing for a glimpse of what happened to their neighborhoods that information was very valueable! and those were public streets! there was absolutely NO REASON why wtkr couldn’t get video of that! and last place? not for long with Shane Moreland there!