Josh Wolf, Journalist

Josh Wolf, jailed for refusing to turn over film footage shot at a violent demonstration in which he was a willing participant, feels he has been wronged by the government. Citing journalistic shield laws, he also believes he should not have to testify to possibly witnessing a number of criminal acts, and feels he should not have to turn over raw tapes that may or may not contain video evidence of the commission of said crimes. The U.S. Attorney General wants to see the tape to determine for itself if it contains any evidence of criminal behavior. Wolf says, "The Assistant U.S. Attorney said the government has the duty to see if anything suspicious occurred, and then determine if there's a crime. That's not a world I want to live in." Fair enough. Let's try that scenario a different way.

Let's say I'm a self-styled journalist with no real training who belongs to a radical group that vehemently opposes, say, Josh Wolf's parents. I go to a demonstration outside his house with the intention of filming my masked fellow believers protesting, then violently attacking his house and family. Although I do not have film of the actual attack on his mother, who suffered a fractured skull, there is a possibility that there could be evidence, unbeknownst to me, somewhere on my raw tape that identifies a perpetrator, or that the police believe I personally know who the culprit is. I manage to leave the scene without being questioned by the police, and later, post edited clips of the demonstration on my web site. When asked by the police to turn over my tape, I refuse. Do you think Josh Wolf would be comfortable with my refusal to hand the tape over to the government to be screened for possible evidence of criminal behavior? Would he defend my right to keep my fellow demonstrators out of harm's way by claiming journalistic shielding? Would people set up web sites calling for donations to fund my defense and demand that I be held free of any liability because I'm a journalist? Would the Society of Professional Journalists award me the title of "Journalist of the Year"? If not, why not?

Josh Wolf calls himself an anarchist. Merriam-Webster defines an anarchist as "1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power. 2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order." In an interview from jail with Kevin Sites, Wolf says he feels "safe" in his incarceration. He says he is not housed with violent offenders, but he does say he is inconvenienced by not being able to access the internet. And he doesn't seem very happy with the food either. Isn't that a shame? Isn't that inconvenient? Isn't it a bit incongruous to espouse violence and then be thankful that you're not exposed to it? I don't think for one second that Josh Wolf would last very long among really ruthless and violent people, and make no mistake: There are a lot of them, and I suspect they would chew Josh Wolf up and spit him out. Literally. At the ripe age of 24, he would have you believe that he has a better grasp of the real world than most, and that anarchy would be preferable to our current system. I say throw him down with the hard core criminals, and let him see the consequences of a world with no rules. There's a reason we have prisons for people who don't like to follow the rules of civility.

In the above mentioned interview, Wolf seemed very enamored with the word "basically". Let's use that. Wolf is out of prison now, because, basically, he buckled, and he basically betrayed his convictions by turning over the tape the government wanted. Apparently, the mean old government, in its endeavor to try to protect all citizens from violence, and to hold those who do commit it accountable, basically broke Wolf's steely resolve by denying him access to a computer and giving him lunches he didn't like.

In the same interview, Sites repeatedly asked Wolf which side he was taking, either journalist or activist, and Wolf, basically, refused to answer the question. He talked a lot, but never answered the question. Many years ago, long before Wolf was born, I studied journalism, and I was taught that a good reporter will get the answers to the "5 w's and the h", which, of course, are "who, what, where, when, why and how". Wolf, the journalist, couldn't or wouldn't answer a simple question, one that any first year journalism student would know is vital to the story. (Sites, by the way, showed great patience by not saying "Answer the ******* question"!) Anyway, maybe now that he's out of jail, instead of milking his pseudo fame, he will, basically, go back to school to learn what a real journalist does: Cover ALL the aspects of the story and let the reader decide what is relevant.

For the record, this blog is my opinion; I, basically, do not claim to be a journalist.