"If people can't trust that journalists are journalists, then we are on the road to intellectual anarchy."
May 22, 2007 6:37 AM   Subscribe

Vancouver police posed as journalists to lure out and arrest the activist who threatened to bring protest of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics to the doorsteps of Olympic officials - and it isn't the first time police in BC have impersonated the media to make an arrest. The Canadian Association of Journalists is not amused, but a constable speaking for the VPD "doubts the outrage from the person on the street over the issue would be the same as it has been from the journalistic community". (Previously)
posted by blackberet (46 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Journalists aren't a special class of citizens. Cops can go undercover as anyone, including journalists. Personally, I've never understood the willingness to admit something to a journalist you wouldn't admit to a cop. The journalist's job is to publicize your story.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:45 AM on May 22, 2007


Yeah, if we're going to go around granting special powers and privileges to the press beyond the ability to say whatever they want, I want some strict definitions on what counts as a "journalist" beyond "I call myself one."
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:05 AM on May 22, 2007


Let's not stop with journalists. Let's include posing as doctors and clergy, too.
I have a hunch cops everywhere are just champing at the bit to pose as priests in the confession booth.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:09 AM on May 22, 2007


Cops can go undercover as anyone

Not necessarily true, I don't think. As mentioned above, they probably can't go undercover as a priest or a therapist or a doctor. Well, they could, but anything they find out would be inadmissable as priviledged, no? I mean, I went to a therapist and was under the impression that I was talking to a therapist (or if I was being given Confession) then I am in a priviledged situation, right?
posted by spicynuts at 7:11 AM on May 22, 2007


Wow. It would seem that the Constable is pretty much spot-on in saying that the man in the street won't give a toss about this...

Can you seriously see no problem with police impersonating journalists? The CAJ and others are arguing that this sets a very chilling precedent, and I'm inclined to agree.

Pretend for a moment that I live in a country (no doubt far far away) where the police are hopelessly corrupt and do not always have society's best interests at the forefront. If I'm wrongly accused by said police, then being able to speak to the media in an attempt to get my side of the story out is one of the only potentially effective avenues open to me, assuming that they haven't already been co-opted.

A free press is widely recognized as being a prerequisite for a healthy democracy - so how is it ever going to be acceptable for the state to pose as members of that free press? How can journalism fulfill its role as a counterbalance and check on power, or help the wrongly accused, if they may always be police in disguise?

I don't much like the idea of living in a society where this is all OK - particularly in a case like this, where it seems that posing as journalists was simple laziness on VPD's part, rather than necessity. There was no immediate and urgent threat to anyone's life here - the police no doubt had plenty of other more conventional options available to them to locate and apprehend their suspect (on charges that it is hard to imagine will stick in the first place).
posted by blackberet at 7:18 AM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Not necessarily true, I don't think. As mentioned above, they probably can't go undercover as a priest or a therapist or a doctor

That would probably be considered entrapment, because as you note, there exists a legal privilege with therapists and priests that isn't present with journalists. At least in most states in the US. I can't speak for Canadian law.

I suspect what is going on here is a manifestation of the belief among journalists that their choice to protect the confidentiality of their sources should rise to the privilege barring the government from compelling the disclosure.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:19 AM on May 22, 2007


When you are about to admit something illegal to someone you just met, you ask if they are a cop. Who among the vice squad movie watching community doesn't know that?
posted by DU at 7:23 AM on May 22, 2007


Yeah like on Cops whenever the johns ask the undercover cop/whore if she's a cop and then the cop/whore says no.
posted by spicynuts at 7:27 AM on May 22, 2007


Most people no longer trust the media anyway. So this is win-win for the police and, more importantly, the government: the State gets its arrest, and the arrest invokes greater public distrust of journalists and journalism as a whole.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:39 AM on May 22, 2007


A smarter activist would have mailed (or otherwise delivered) a self-interview to a newspaper.

If you're up to something sneaky, never talk to a journalist who isn't definitely (you've seen her on TV, for example) an actual journalist and someone you trust to be on your side. And make sure you don't talk to the guy who tries to catch kids whacking off in the library.
posted by pracowity at 7:58 AM on May 22, 2007


What's the big deal? Those guys at 24 -- the free commuter rag that was the chosen front for the cops -- impersonate journalists every day.

Here all week, try the veal, etc.
posted by docgonzo at 7:59 AM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


Journalist, as a group, are assholes. Somehow, they think they are special, but I got news for you (pun intended)..... cops posing as journalists is all part of free speech.

Deal with it!
posted by jonjacobmoon at 8:04 AM on May 22, 2007


I read that link about the protest organizer who plans to take the protest to the homes of Olympic committee members. I was very disappointed they didn't print his home address as part of the article.
posted by rocket88 at 8:10 AM on May 22, 2007


Personally, I've never understood the willingness to admit something to a journalist you wouldn't admit to a cop. The journalist's job is to publicize your story.

Yeah, but the journalist is usually in it for the story, not the bust.
posted by cortex at 8:14 AM on May 22, 2007


"Deal with it!" is not considered a proof of your assertions in the adult world.
posted by notsnot at 8:14 AM on May 22, 2007 [2 favorites]


...Somehow, they think they are special,...
Well, having your profession included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 2) can do that to you.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:15 AM on May 22, 2007 [3 favorites]


Can you seriously see no problem with police impersonating journalists? The CAJ and others are arguing that this sets a very chilling precedent, and I'm inclined to agree.

Did you read why they thought it would be a chilling precedent? Because it would make journalists' jobs more difficult. Too bad. Journalists already aren't doing their jobs. Their chasing ratings and sales like everyone else.

You are making the implicit assumption that cops are corrupt and that the journalists aren't. If you make that assumption, then the only conclusion is revolution, not making it improper for corrupt cops to pose as journalists. Why not assume both are corrupt, or that neither are?

Cops can pose as members of the protest group, right? Wouldn't that mean the cops can give interviews to journalists? So why not let the cops pose as journalists?

And can't cops be bloggers? Isn't blogging a form of journalism now? Doesn't that make blogger cops journalists in fact?

Furthermore, journalists can impersonate anyone (except cops, I'd imagine), and they CAN entrapt you, use hidden cameras, wear wires, etc all without warrants and court approval, and they can broadcast everything they record on television and humiliate you, even if you don't break the law. That's journalism.

You can't make rules of general application based on rare or outlying cases, because it makes the system impossible to administrate.

Barring the existence of a legally recognized privilege and within the bounds of the law, cops should be able to impersonate anyone and infiltrate anything. Just like journalists and ordinary citizens can.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2007


I dunno, if anyone can claim to be a journalist, then shouldn't journalists be just like everyone else?

A cop can impersonate me anytime he feels like it, and I can't recall the last time anyone protested that.

Other professions that receive special treatment must also submit to special oversight -- doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., all have to take exams, apply for registration, usually tack on expensive professional insurance of various kinds, take XYZ hours of continuing education every year, etc. etc. etc.

Why not journalists? ...and if not, then why should they receive special protections that I personally don't receive?
posted by aramaic at 8:29 AM on May 22, 2007


I don't understand why David Cunningham was arrested. And though I agree that the impersonation of the press by police should have a chilling effect on free speech, it seems Cunningham was arrested for a crime which he might commit, according to this FPP. If that's the case, then the police actions are truly reprehensible and is the bigger story. If he was arrested for past crimes and there were warrants for his arrest, then the article (had it been printed on paper) should be used for the toilet.
posted by sluglicker at 8:37 AM on May 22, 2007


I dunno, if anyone can claim to be a journalist, then shouldn't journalists be just like everyone else?

Moreover, our most important civil security forces should be just like everyone else. If a cop asks if you'd like to buy pot, you can say "yes" and get the drugs and then you can be arrested for purchasing drugs but the cop can't be arrested for selling you drugs.

This is not an ability of any other citizen in this country. Cops should not be allowed to be deceive the citizens they serve.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 8:39 AM on May 22, 2007


sluglicker: Conspiracy to committ an illegal act is a crime. (assuming that's what he was arrested for)
posted by rocket88 at 8:48 AM on May 22, 2007


Yes - I make the implicit assumption that police are corrupt. I don't believe that in practice, but surely it's the type of critical assumption that one needs to start out from as a matter of civic duty in a free state. Trusting that police are beacons of virtue is at least as stupid as trusting that journalists aren't for the most part exploitative bottom-feeders - and given that police wield the power of the state and have the right to detain you / confiscate your property / shoot you, etc, the stakes are alot higher. Trust for any institution, rather than individuals, is surely antithetical to democracy.

VPD lists "Accountability" as one of it's Values. But who holds the police accountable? As a general rule, it's not the state. Time and time again, corrective action is taken because journalists cast light upon issues. Often when the 'right thing' is done, the hands of politicians have been forced by negative publicity - simply sweeping things under the rug would have been the (quite natural) preference of the cops, their unions, and the politicians with oversight.

The whole notion of the press fulfilling this kind of corrective role with regard to the state may be becoming more or less extinct in the US, but it's still a fairly common and essential function of it in Canada and elsewhere.

Your claim that the CAJ is against this because "it would make journalists' jobs more difficult" is an incredibly obtuse (and/or lazy) reading. They are against it because they recognize that there are far bigger issues in play here, ones which are fundamental to free societies being substantially and genuinely free.
posted by blackberet at 9:01 AM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


then I'm sure those assholes would not object if Canadian journalists began to pose as cops and start arresting people and seizing their documents
posted by matteo at 9:09 AM on May 22, 2007


(and by the way the alternative to a -- deeply flawed, Judith Miller anybody? -- media is getting your news directly from the government's press office, à la Fox News. as flawed and reactive and childish and reflexively conservative as the media is, the alternative is just much, much scarier. those who lack the brains to figure out the necessity of a free press in a free society don't really deserve to live in a democracy to begin with)
posted by matteo at 9:12 AM on May 22, 2007


*knock knock*
Plumber.
Plumber? I don’t need a plumber.





...Journalist.
Ok, which paper are you from?





....Flowers, ma’am.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:24 AM on May 22, 2007


...Candygram.
posted by grouse at 9:36 AM on May 22, 2007


What the Vancouver police did is problematic because it indicates they (or, most likely the team that planned out the arrest) have no respect for the press, or freedom of the press, and are also unconcerned with the consequences that all news outlets will have to face in Vancouver.

Through no fault of their own, news orgs in Vancouver will no longer be as trusted as they were, and so the Vancouver police's actions have eroded freedom of speech.

To be fair, it's probably more of a problem of lack of training than anything else, just as when the Vancouver police violated church sanctuary earlier this year for the first time in Canadian history:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/02/19/church-refugee-070219.html
posted by KokuRyu at 9:38 AM on May 22, 2007


Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning confirmed that Cunningham was arrested at about 3:45 p.m. at Abbott and Pender streets and faces charges related to uttering threats. He said Cunningham was released at 8 p.m. last night on a surety to keep the peace.

Fanning said the threats related to Cunningham's appearance May 16 at Vancouver 2010 Olympic headquarters, where he announced publicly a plan to "bring the class war" to the "offices and doorsteps" of the members of VANOC, the Games' organizing committee.

"We have found where their offices are and we have found where their homes are," Cunningham said, and "evictions" were planned. Fanning said police had sought conditions for Cunningham's release that included no direct or indirect contact with VANOC board or team members at their businesses or homes, that he stay two blocks from VANOC's Graveley Street offices and that he stay away from any event hosted by VANOC.
via
posted by sluglicker at 9:40 AM on May 22, 2007


More background on David Cunningham conveniently located on Metafilter.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:43 AM on May 22, 2007


Everyone has a right to adequate housing. This is a right that was first recognized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights more than fifty years ago, and then guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Canada has been a signatory since 1976. The fact that adequate housing is the subject of a human rights treaty underscores its importance to everyone's human dignity, and to each person's ability to live in safety and health. via

The 2010 Games will cost approximately $20 billion (ok, so it's Canadian dollars).I'm guessing homelessness in BC could be eradicated for a tenth of that.
posted by sluglicker at 10:06 AM on May 22, 2007


I'm troubled by police posing as journalists. A free society has a free press where ideas, even troubling or inconvenient ones, can be brought forth and discussed openly. A free press publicizes issues, and hopefully helps produce legal and mutually acceptable change, and functions as as oversight on those holding power.

Whether or not you're happy with the current state of journalism, cops posing as journalists will only make this worse.

Also note that this tactic would only be effective at trapping those with causes (many legitimate) on the possibility that they might be planning a protest or some form of civil disobedience. Your average drug dealer or cheque-kiter wouldn't come out for an interview.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:07 AM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


KokoRyu: are you actually implying that the police should know that hanging out in a church is a legal sanctuary? What about a mosque or a temple? What about a Jehovah's witness hall? What absolute mockery that would be of the separation between church and state, not to mention common sense. As they say in the article you conveniently link to, it's not true.
posted by jacalata at 10:07 AM on May 22, 2007


Jürgen Habermas: "Keine Demokratie kann sich das leisten"
posted by matteo at 10:19 AM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


jacalata:

As you noted, there is no legal basis (or, rather, you say it is 'not true') for sanctuary in Canadian law - it is instead a convention that has been observed not only in Canada but also in Great Britain.

Churches don't offer sanctuary to just anyone, either. Usually in Canada it's for immigration cases.

I don't know about mosques or Kingdom Halls, etc.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:43 AM on May 22, 2007


they probably can't go undercover as a priest or a therapist or a doctor. Well, they could, but anything they find out would be inadmissable as priviledged, no?

No.

In Canada, attorney-client privilege is inviolable, because a person must be able to attend to their own defence. Both doctor-patient (including psychologists/psychiatrists) and priests can be subpoenaed to testify and/or produce records of information confided to them.

Which is why you never discuss your legal problems with your shrink. And a good one, should you start to do that, will say so.

I suspect what is going on here is a manifestation of the belief among journalists that their choice to protect the confidentiality of their sources should rise to the privilege barring the government from compelling the disclosure.

Yeah that's not gonna happen. If doctors and priests don't get it, journalists sure as hell aren't going to.
posted by dreamsign at 11:06 AM on May 22, 2007


Wow. I honestly find the idea of sanctuary in a church quite archaic, and actually sort of repellent. I don't like religion, and I don't see why some Christian nut should have the power to say that 'this guy can't be arrested because he's in my cubby', even if all the cases mentioned have been perfectly justifiable. Now I want to see someone claim sanctuary in a mosque, or a quaker meeting house or something. (Because while I dislike organised religion in general, I dislike even more people who act like organised christianity is special).
posted by jacalata at 11:11 AM on May 22, 2007


It doesn't seem to be that the convention of sanctuary is based on the primacy of the Christian church. Instead, sanctuary is a convention based on dialog, understanding, and trust between churches and law enforcement. Basically, sanctuary exists because of the efforts of the churches to promote and maintain the concept.

It's far from an arbitrary process. Because sanctuary is a convention, it is in a church's (or diocese, etc) best interest to provide sanctuary for legitimate cases only, rather to abuse the privilege and risk losing it in the future.

And which is more repellent? An individual a genuine claim of refugee status who has been denied such status in Canada or wherever and will be sent back on the next plane to be tortured or executed?

Or a church that provides a little leeway that a slow-moving bureaucracy cannot. Christ certainly did not base His behavior on temporal laws.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:27 AM on May 22, 2007


I'm not happy with the VPD posing as the media. That is the act of a cop acting like a jerk. Mind you, it seems like there's no lack of immaturity on the part of the cops or the anti-2010 organizers these days. I'm guessing the VPD is getting serious pressure from the Mayor's office to deal with all of this but quick.

I think smart organizations, when asked for an interview, will now do the smart thing and do a background check on the interviewer before consenting. Not such a big workaround.
posted by Salmonberry at 1:56 PM on May 22, 2007


This just in:

B.C. cabinet office trashed in Olympic protest
posted by KokuRyu at 10:09 PM on May 22, 2007


Journalist, as a group, are assholes. Somehow, they think they are special, but I got news for you (pun intended)..... cops posing as journalists is all part of free speech.

Deal with it!


Holy shit, you just blew my mind.

I was going to say how opposed to this I was (while perhaps noting wryly the inherent similarities between police work and most journalism this underlines), not only because of the chilling effect it's likely to have, but because this will make it that much harder for journalists to separate themselves from the powers that be, and most journalists are lazy or overworked to start with so that doesn't bode well.

But you were just like, BAM! Journalists: assholes. And there was that pun you made, and with so much intent... I...

I'm sorry. I just, I have to go deal with this.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:41 PM on May 22, 2007


B.C. cabinet office trashed in Olympic protest

WANTED: attention seeking media whore to fill the dead space when there's a slow day over at the Pickton trial. Must be loud, obnoxious, angry and, absolutely useless at effecting real social change. Being photogenic is a plus but not mandatory ... signed, the media.
posted by squeak at 12:53 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Police are poisoning their own information source by posing as journalists. Because journalists are, as others have said, only out for stories and not for busts, criminals are often willing to give them information that they would never give the police.

Information on things like organized crime networks, large-scale social problems, new criminal methods, and other crime-related things have often slipped out through the media before the police were aware of them. And while the information released is rarely useful in catching the person the journalist was dealing with, it is often extremely useful in fighting organized crime networks, dealing with large-scale social issues, and developing new methods for discovering and fighting crime in general.

Journalist's privilege exists for a reason - we are better off getting the information the confidential sources have to offer, even if we have to let the source get away. Letting police impersonate journalists undermines this directly and over the long term will be bad for everyone, even the police.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:18 AM on May 23, 2007


Journalist's privilege exists for a reason

No, it doesn't exist, at least in BC. You think it should exist, but that's a different matter.
posted by grouse at 2:31 AM on May 23, 2007


No, it doesn't exist, at least in BC. You think it should exist, but that's a different matter.

Privilege does exist in Canada but the legal precedence is much weaker in Canada than in the US, relying on interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Righs and Freedoms as exercise of privilege as being in the public interest. The recent McIntosh case victory (PDF, see page 8) is a welcome example:

Justice Benotto agreed. "Sources may dry up if their identities were revealed," she wrote. "Confidential sources are essential to the effective functioning of the media in a free and democratic society."

Still, while privilege exists, it is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances:

But Benotto's ruling does not offer blanket protection for a journalist's sources. She stressed that McIntosh's case was "unique" and his story so important, dealing as it did with the country's top elected official, that the right to protect his source must prevail.

A promise of confidentiality may still turn out to be a promise a journalist cannot keep. A police raid may be justified or a journalist may be subpoenaed and forced to reveal a source as part of a court case, when refusing to do so could be punished with a fine or jail time.

But when pursuing stories of significant public importance, media outlets have gained a new weapon in the struggle to protect sources.


To be fair, source privilege really only exists in the United States for corporate media wealthy and connected enough to have legal representation. A recent FRONTLINE documentary highlights the difference in ability to protect a confidential source, between American-based corporate and independent media outlets.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 AM on May 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Privilege does exist in Canada but the legal precedence is much weaker in Canada than in the US

Really good analysis, this!
posted by KokuRyu at 10:19 AM on May 23, 2007


Sorry, I thought Mitrovarr meant a privilege not to be impersonated by police.
posted by grouse at 10:25 AM on May 23, 2007


« Older Brood XIII   |   Knocking Documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments