W. Va. reporter arrested for 'yelling questions' at HHS secretary

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/10/w-virginia-reporter-arrested-yelling-questions-visiting-hhs-secretary-tom-price/101503242/

Quote:A veteran West Virginia reporter has been arrested and charged with "disruption of government services" in the state capitol for "yelling questions" at visiting Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price and White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway.


Daniel Ralph Heyman, 54, with the Public News Service of West Virginia, was freed on $5,000 bond Tuesday night on a charge of "willful disruption of government processes," according to a criminal complaint.

“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,” the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by “yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price.”

The misdemeanor carries a possible fine of $100 and up to six months in jail.

Heyman later told reporters he was “trying to do my job” by pressing the secretary on whether domestic violence would be considered a pre-existing condition under the proposed American Health Care Act.

Heyman, a veteran reporter who covers health issues for Public News Service, said he was holding his phone out to record the impromptu hallway interview but Price repeatedly refused to respond. “He didn’t say anything,” Heyman told reporters. "So I persisted.”[/url]


Heyman told reporters at the news conference, posted on the Facebook page of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, that his arrest sets a “terrible example” for members of the media seeking answers.


“This is my job, this is what I’m supposed to do,” he said. “I think it’s a question that deserves to be answered. I think it’s my job to ask questions and I think it’s my job to try to get answers.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia called the charges "outrageous" and said the arrest was "a blatant attempt to chill an independent, free press."

"Freedom of the press is being eroded every day, " it said in a statement. "We have a president who calls the media 'fake news' and resists transparency at every turn."

The statement said this is a "dangerous time in the country."
View image on Twitter

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/thehill] Follow
The Hill 

@thehill
Reporter arrested after repeatedly questioning Health secretary about ObamaCare repeal: http://hill.cm/u3zVRpn 
9:01 AM - 10 May 2017

Price and Conway were in the state to discuss the opioid addiction in West Virginia, which has the highest drug overdose death rate in the nation.They met privately with state and local policymakers and members of several groups, including officials of an addiction treatment center and an addiction hotline, according to the Associated Press.

In the capitol building, they were also confronted by a handful of demonstrators protesting the bill recently passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. House to repeal and replace Obamacare. At the time of the incident, Heyman said he was the only reporter scurrying down the hallway with the Price entourage.

Kristen O'Sullivan, who recorded the arrest on her cell phone, was among the protesters. She told Public News Service that Heyman was grabbed by the back of the neck and put against a wall by capitol security officers.

"And it's a shame," she told the media organization, "to see not only the fact that we may be losing the ability for ourselves to get our pre-existing conditions covered, but we're losing out on the First Amendment. We can't even report on that anymore."

Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.

"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."

Heyman, who was wearing his 8-year-old press pass and a shirt with his organization's logo at the time, told reporters that no one who identified themselves as law enforcement — neither Secret Service nor police — asked him to leave the area. He said a person he thought may have been one of Price's aides told him he “probably shouldn’t be there” and he asked why not.

Heyman's attorney, Tim DiPiero, told Public News Service that the charge, "willful disruption of governmental processes," is based on what he called a "vague" statute, and that Heyman was just doing his job as a journalist.

Snowflakes don't like voices I guess?





(Did I do that right?)

[Benton]

Was just thinking about posting something on this.

Of course, I'm admittedly one-sided on this issue. But arresting reporters because they asked questions too loudly — chiefly because they were being ignored — is a horrible road to go down. Price didn't have to answer the question. He could've said "I don't know" or "No comment" or "you've got bad breath, put it in an email." But to ignore a representative of the people and arrest that representative is dangerous.

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 12:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Was just thinking about posting something on this.

Of course, I'm admittedly one-sided on this issue. But arresting reporters because they asked questions too loudly — chiefly because they were being ignored — is a horrible road to go down. Price didn't have to answer the question. He could've said "I don't know" or "No comment" or "you've got bad breath, put it in an email." But to ignore a representative of the people and arrest that representative is dangerous.

When one looks at this incident in the context of Trump administration press relations, then it certainly looks bad, part of a trend to rebuke, intimidate, limit access and otherwise muzzle the press.

But the description above leaves open another interpretation, namely that the law enforcement in this case may have mucked this up on their own initiative, over-reacted. Even so, Price might have stuck up for the reporter, demanding he be released from jail.

[*bfine32*]

Quote:“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,”

Yep, that'll get you in trouble every time.

[Benton]

(05-10-2017, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, that'll get you in trouble every time.

Depends on protocol. 

I've never been a DC area reporter, so I can't speak to that. But I have traveled with governors, senators, etc., and been in state houses, jails, courtrooms and other areas where there are very specific regulations on where you are allowed to go, where you can have electronic devices, and other restrictions. Media are often allowed access that people off the street aren't because they are representative of those people off the street... provided they follow a few guidelines. Being polite is not one I've ever encountered.

This reporter wasn't exactly new to the beat. It is possible he was intentionally pushing so he could get arrested and get a moment of fame on the other side of the camera. Sure. I find it more likely, though, that he was doing something he had probably done regularly throughout his career there, he just wasn't used to an administration that prefers a fettered press.

[CageTheBengal]

(05-10-2017, 12:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Was just thinking about posting something on this.

Of course, I'm admittedly one-sided on this issue. But arresting reporters because they asked questions too loudly — chiefly because they were being ignored — is a horrible road to go down. Price didn't have to answer the question. He could've said "I don't know" or "No comment" or "you've got bad breath, put it in an email." But to ignore a representative of the people and arrest that representative is dangerous.

Don't like it either.

The governor of Texas signed a bill he knew he would get flack for on Facebook Live because there would be nobody to answer to.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Depends on protocol. 

I've never been a DC area reporter, so I can't speak to that. But I have traveled with governors, senators, etc., and been in state houses, jails, courtrooms and other areas where there are very specific regulations on where you are allowed to go, where you can have electronic devices, and other restrictions. Media are often allowed access that people off the street aren't because they are representative of those people off the street... provided they follow a few guidelines. Being polite is not one I've ever encountered.

This reporter wasn't exactly new to the beat. It is possible he was intentionally pushing so he could get arrested and get a moment of fame on the other side of the camera. Sure. I find it more likely, though, that he was doing something he had probably done regularly throughout his career there, he just wasn't used to an administration that prefers a fettered press.

After 30 years I don't think he would have felt the need to get arrested to make a point.

I think it's not elected officials aren't happy with tough questions and they are used to avoiding it.

Doesn't mean the reporter didn't cross a line somewhere.  But it could probably have been handled without an arrest and charges being filed.

Bad optics at the least.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2017, 01:35 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Don't like it either.

The governor of Texas signed a bill he knew he would get flack for on Facebook Live because there would be nobody to answer to.

Or the midnight signings, or late Friday media dumps.

They know how to hide their dirty laundry.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Depends on protocol. 

I've never been a DC area reporter, so I can't speak to that. But I have traveled with governors, senators, etc., and been in state houses, jails, courtrooms and other areas where there are very specific regulations on where you are allowed to go, where you can have electronic devices, and other restrictions. Media are often allowed access that people off the street aren't because they are representative of those people off the street... provided they follow a few guidelines. Being polite is not one I've ever encountered.

This reporter wasn't exactly new to the beat. It is possible he was intentionally pushing so he could get arrested and get a moment of fame on the other side of the camera. Sure. I find it more likely, though, that he was doing something he had probably done regularly throughout his career there, he just wasn't used to an administration that prefers a fettered press.

I've never seen any protocol where actively trying to breech Secret Service will not get you in trouble.

I will say if he were arrested for simply asking a question; then there is a problem, I have mentioned my displeasure with the way the Trump administration has dealt with the media in the past. However, the examples I remember were simply disagreeing with the validity of their stance. If we are arresting folks for simply asking questions; as the OP suggest, then we have a serious problem.

[Benton]

(05-10-2017, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
I've never seen any protocol where actively trying to breech Secret Service will not get you in trouble.

I will say if he were arrested for simply asking a question; then there is a problem, I have mentioned my displeasure with the way the Trump administration has dealt with the media in the past. However, the examples I remember were simply disagreeing with the validity of their stance. If we are arresting folks for simply asking questions; as the OP suggest, then we have a serious problem.

Depends on the situation.


Media are, normally, given different treatment. If this was a guy on the street shouting a question and trying to push through SS, then I would agree. If it's a reporter who — based off my own experience with security details — normally shouts a question and pushes through the detail, I disagree.

It's entirely up to the individual, though. As in courtrooms where a judge has authority to limit some devices, discussion, photos, etc. It boils down to personal preference. I've been in courtrooms where the judge ordered court security to keep things minimally intrusive, and others where judges didn't care if reporters sat up near the bench. Lawmakers, likewise, are able to allow or disallow how strict their security details are. If the norm for Price is to allow reporters into some areas and ask questions, then he — in my opinion — made a significant error by ordering or in the least allowing that protocol to change because he was didn't want to answer a question.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2017, 02:47 PM). Benton Wrote: Depends on the situation.


Media are, normally, given different treatment. If this was a guy on the street shouting a question and trying to push through SS, then I would agree. If it's a reporter who — based off my own experience with security details — normally shouts a question and pushes through the detail, I disagree.

It's entirely up to the individual, though. As in courtrooms where a judge has authority to limit some devices, discussion, photos, etc. It boils down to personal preference. I've been in courtrooms where the judge ordered court security to keep things minimally intrusive, and others where judges didn't care if reporters sat up near the bench. Lawmakers, likewise, are able to allow or disallow how strict their security details are. If the norm for Price is to allow reporters into some areas and ask questions, then he — in my opinion — made a significant error by ordering or in the least allowing that protocol to change because he was didn't want to answer a question.

Okey Doke we'll just disagree on the assertion of actively trying to breech the Secret Service can be allowed depending on protocol or the situation and additional leeway is given to the media. This was not "some security detail." I'll stand by the assertion that it will get you in trouble every time.

Now weather is was standard proceedure for Secret Service to deny what he was doing is a totally different situation.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

That's how we treat the enemy of the people. Keep it up and we will declare you a non-combatant of the people and ship your ass to Guantanamo.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah I'm not getting the issue here. The secret service removed him several times? Sorry, but you were warned. If you don't think they should have done that, then take it up with someone later. It's like with cops. You're not going to win at the scene.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-10-2017, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke we'll just disagree on the assertion of actively trying to breech the Secret Service can be allowed depending on protocol or the situation and additional leeway is given to the media. This was not "some security detail." I'll stand by the assertion that it will get you in trouble every time.

Now weather is was standard proceedure for Secret Service to deny what he was doing is a totally different situation.

What was he doing to "aggressively breach" the Secret Service that forced them to remove him a couple times from "the area walking up the hallway"?

That could mean he stood in their path asking questions and they had to "remove" him from their path.

That is the part of the story that makes this newsworthy or the reporter a dumbass for doing something stupid. We will likely never know.

[Benton]

(05-11-2017, 10:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I'm not getting the issue here.  The secret service removed him several times?  Sorry, but you were warned.  If you don't think they should have done that, then take it up with someone later.  It's like with cops.  You're not going to win at the scene.

The issue is the where of it. If he was removed from a public area or a press area, that's  significant issue. That's along the lines of the police asking you to get off the sidewalk because a public official doesn't like you, not at the scene of a crime.

If it was a restricted area where exceptions weren't normally made for the media, I agree. If it was, or a public area as some of the stories are saying, then it was handled poorly. 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2017, 01:41 PM)Benton Wrote: The issue is the where of it. If he was removed from a public area or a press area, that's  significant issue. That's along the lines of the police asking you to get off the sidewalk because a public official doesn't like you, not at the scene of a crime.

If it was a restricted area where exceptions weren't normally made for the media, I agree. If it was, or a public area as some of the stories are saying, then it was handled poorly. 

I agree, but you take it up down the road.  If you end up in jail because you repeatedly ignore the Secret Service, that's your own stupidity.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-11-2017, 02:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree, but you take it up down the road.  If you end up in jail because you repeatedly ignore the Secret Service, that's your own stupidity.

This reminds me of some of the initial reaction to the passenger on United who refused to give up his seat due to overbooking. I need more detail to know who is in the wrong here.

[Benton]

(05-11-2017, 02:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree, but you take it up down the road.  If you end up in jail because you repeatedly ignore the Secret Service, that's your own stupidity.

The secret service has no right to kick you out of a public place because they don't like you.

Edit to add, if I remember right, it was the capitol police, not the ss.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Quote:Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price's group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.

"I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that," she told Public News Service. "Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody's attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone's space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself."

Granted that's only one eye witness account, but that description doesn't equal multiple or aggressive breachs of Secret Service security.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think he was arrested because he didn't obey the commands of the Secret Service...many times.

It says right there in the article that he had to be "removed a couple of times", so that tells me he was told multiple times to back up or whatever.