PressEthic

It seems evident that Josh Wolf apprehends his current dilemma as a fight for journalistic freedom against the onslaught of a sinister government. His current reality began after refusing to provide the unedited footage he had taped of a protest in San Fransisco to federal and local authorities who arrived at his door making the request. The protest, organized in solidarity with protests occuring in Scotland surrounding the G8 meeting there in August, 2005 necessitated a police presence.

During the protest a police officer was injured. From the interview on Democracy Now! Josh stated the officer received

. . . quite significant injuries. I believe there was a fractured skull, I don't know, I wasn't anywhere near that incident occuring, but that is what the reports have beared out

Josh had provided an edited portion of his tape to a local news source which he said was

. . .exhibiting some of the exorbitant police behavior that didn't seem appropriate, to be honest, to that station to kind of get the story out there

The tape was requested, most likely, because of the altercation with the police officer, because the officer was injured, because the tape could be used as evidence and because video is an unbiased testimony that could defer liabilty - or create liability - for the San Fransisco Police Department. Even if Josh was not near where the incident actually occured there could be useful footage relating to the events of that day. Josh was not ordered to not retain a copy for himself or to suppress its release to news outlets or his own video blog.

Josh, in his blog, thanked those "who've put together such a kick-ass wiki. In the Wikipedia article

. . . Wolf has refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that taking such action would serve as a chilling effect to other journalists trying to cover future protests.

Understandably, the fear of possible legal action is a valid concern for journalists covering stories that shed an unfavorable light on the government. Here, however, this concern is misrepresented. Unlike Lance Williams, the San Fransisco Chronicle reporter who has refused to give the names of sources who provided him with transcripts of Grand Jury testimony, regarding professional athletes juicing, Josh Wolf is neither pitching a battle for journalistic integrity or for first amendment rights.

Williams guaranteed his sources anonymity. Wolf was filming a public event. Providing the tape was not onerous or in violation of any civil liberties. A crime had possibly been committed. An officer had definately been seriously injured. Viewing his argument as a battle against the unscrupulous and overreaching actions of government does not follow. A fair and balanced approach toward news extends also to the perception a journalist should apply toward the actions of individuals, corporations and governments. Presupposing government intent as sinister clouds the issues and personal judgement.