Drizzt
Member
Unlikely defense: gun owners for City Hall reporters
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
By Steve Stanek
CHICAGO -- Though people in the news media generally promote more gun control, gun owners across the country have begun expressing sympathy for Chicago's news people. Often, however, the gun owners' support is in humorous, mocking and backhanded ways.
IllinoisLeader.com's June 18 story,"City Hall to require journalists' fingerprints," was picked up by other websites and chat rooms. The story led to discussions amongst gun owners who see parallels between attempts to restrict law-abiding gun owners and Chicago's proposal to fingerprint and conduct background checks on journalists who want police department credentials. The credentials allow news people access to certain places, such as the chambers of city hall or inside police lines at crime scenes or fires.
Tongue-in-cheek seems to be a favorite way for gun owners to attack Chicago's fingerprinting proposal.
"Since the Founding Fathers didn't mention typewriters or word processors, they should all be registered and in some cases confiscated. A good 'first step' is to do away with high-capacity articles and limit them to 750 words or less. The same goes for Assault Editorials," wrote gun-owner "wag Oatka" on June 23 at www.freerepublic.com.
"It's about time we had some commonsense journalist control measures put into place . . . if it saves just one politician . . . " was the comment by "glock rocks."
"Hey, if I have to license my gun, I don't see any reason why journalists shouldn't have to license their pens. After all, you can really hurt someone with bad reporting," wrote "Henrietta."
"Having successfully handcuffed the amendment with bite, the time is now for curtailing the amendment with bark," was the comment of "teeman8r," referring to the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
With the mocking and sarcasm comes sympathy.
Comments to Illinoisleader.com include these: "Did you really think they would stop with the Second Amendment?" (Pete Tucker, Boulder, Colo.) and "Interesting story that is drawing hoots from the pro-gun crowd. The Fourth Estate is beginning to undergo the same piecemeal reduction of their Constitutional rights as gun owners -- all in the name of 'security.'" (Albert Krause, Clark County, Nev.)
"Teeman8r," Tucker and Krause may be on to something. Our June 18 article noted that Los Angeles already fingerprints and runs background checks on reporters, and charges each reporter $50 to do so.
After reading the Leader article, Molly McDonough, immediate-past president of the Chicago Headline Club, told us of recent developments in other cities. The Headline Club is the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.
"Harrisburg (the state capitol of Pennsylvania) just did this," McDonough said. The state press corps, who have offices in the capitol building, originally would have received an access card to the building only if they first submitted to annual criminal background checks and were okayed by the state Dept. of General Services. A recent compromise allows them get access cards if their employers conduct criminal background checks and send the state a certified letter stating the reporter has either no record or conviction for a violent crime.
New York City requires reporters to have credentials, but to obtain one a reporter need only present proof of publication (or, in the case of temporary credentials, proof of assignment). There is no background check. However, some New York reporters have complained that police there are restricting even credentialed reporters.
McDonough declined to comment on the gun owners who have come out (albeit often mockingly) in defense of Chicago's reporters. But she did raise a concern that is often expressed by gun owners who must submit to background checks.
"Who would have access to these background checks?" she said. "It's hard for me to believe the police department will do background checks and not put that information in a file. Who will get it? An alderman with a grudge? Even if there's nothing illegal (in the background check), who knows what will show up? You should the see messages I'm getting from members. The scenarios are endless."
The Chicago Police Department says it will not keep the fingerprints or criminal background information on reporters, but a decades-old city ordinance that authorizes the city to collect fingerprints from reporters says credentials will not be issued until a reporter's fingerprints are on file.
"It doesn't mesh with what they're saying," McDonough said. She added that in the 1950s or early 1960s the city tried to use the ordinance to deny access to a reporter for a communist publication and was sued. Because of the lawsuit the ordinance has not been enforced.
The Headline Club polled its members and found that some believe if reporters are going to receive special access, there is a certain justification for background checks and fingerprints.
"But there is almost unanimous concern about how the information would be used and who will be excluded," McDonough said.
http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=6725
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
By Steve Stanek
CHICAGO -- Though people in the news media generally promote more gun control, gun owners across the country have begun expressing sympathy for Chicago's news people. Often, however, the gun owners' support is in humorous, mocking and backhanded ways.
IllinoisLeader.com's June 18 story,"City Hall to require journalists' fingerprints," was picked up by other websites and chat rooms. The story led to discussions amongst gun owners who see parallels between attempts to restrict law-abiding gun owners and Chicago's proposal to fingerprint and conduct background checks on journalists who want police department credentials. The credentials allow news people access to certain places, such as the chambers of city hall or inside police lines at crime scenes or fires.
Tongue-in-cheek seems to be a favorite way for gun owners to attack Chicago's fingerprinting proposal.
"Since the Founding Fathers didn't mention typewriters or word processors, they should all be registered and in some cases confiscated. A good 'first step' is to do away with high-capacity articles and limit them to 750 words or less. The same goes for Assault Editorials," wrote gun-owner "wag Oatka" on June 23 at www.freerepublic.com.
"It's about time we had some commonsense journalist control measures put into place . . . if it saves just one politician . . . " was the comment by "glock rocks."
"Hey, if I have to license my gun, I don't see any reason why journalists shouldn't have to license their pens. After all, you can really hurt someone with bad reporting," wrote "Henrietta."
"Having successfully handcuffed the amendment with bite, the time is now for curtailing the amendment with bark," was the comment of "teeman8r," referring to the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
With the mocking and sarcasm comes sympathy.
Comments to Illinoisleader.com include these: "Did you really think they would stop with the Second Amendment?" (Pete Tucker, Boulder, Colo.) and "Interesting story that is drawing hoots from the pro-gun crowd. The Fourth Estate is beginning to undergo the same piecemeal reduction of their Constitutional rights as gun owners -- all in the name of 'security.'" (Albert Krause, Clark County, Nev.)
"Teeman8r," Tucker and Krause may be on to something. Our June 18 article noted that Los Angeles already fingerprints and runs background checks on reporters, and charges each reporter $50 to do so.
After reading the Leader article, Molly McDonough, immediate-past president of the Chicago Headline Club, told us of recent developments in other cities. The Headline Club is the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.
"Harrisburg (the state capitol of Pennsylvania) just did this," McDonough said. The state press corps, who have offices in the capitol building, originally would have received an access card to the building only if they first submitted to annual criminal background checks and were okayed by the state Dept. of General Services. A recent compromise allows them get access cards if their employers conduct criminal background checks and send the state a certified letter stating the reporter has either no record or conviction for a violent crime.
New York City requires reporters to have credentials, but to obtain one a reporter need only present proof of publication (or, in the case of temporary credentials, proof of assignment). There is no background check. However, some New York reporters have complained that police there are restricting even credentialed reporters.
McDonough declined to comment on the gun owners who have come out (albeit often mockingly) in defense of Chicago's reporters. But she did raise a concern that is often expressed by gun owners who must submit to background checks.
"Who would have access to these background checks?" she said. "It's hard for me to believe the police department will do background checks and not put that information in a file. Who will get it? An alderman with a grudge? Even if there's nothing illegal (in the background check), who knows what will show up? You should the see messages I'm getting from members. The scenarios are endless."
The Chicago Police Department says it will not keep the fingerprints or criminal background information on reporters, but a decades-old city ordinance that authorizes the city to collect fingerprints from reporters says credentials will not be issued until a reporter's fingerprints are on file.
"It doesn't mesh with what they're saying," McDonough said. She added that in the 1950s or early 1960s the city tried to use the ordinance to deny access to a reporter for a communist publication and was sued. Because of the lawsuit the ordinance has not been enforced.
The Headline Club polled its members and found that some believe if reporters are going to receive special access, there is a certain justification for background checks and fingerprints.
"But there is almost unanimous concern about how the information would be used and who will be excluded," McDonough said.
http://illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=6725