2010.07.01 - The Oregonian and Willamette Week not invited to the presser

[adh74]

Talking about his favorite foods etc. could be a way to humanize him for the benefit of a stranger abductor so he'll take good care of him and not hurt him, but it's a bit late in the game for that and it doesn't really make sense if they think Terri did it because she'd know all that stuff already and chosen not to care.

This is why I think TH had an accomplice who currently has Kyron. Terri isn't giving up info now that she has an attorney, so no they are appealing to her "partner in crime".

 

[Chili Fries]

The Constitutional Right to Freedom of the Press belongs to the people. It insures that the people can trust the press to report accurately and truthfully without the Government controlling what the press reports. So any time the press gives up their Rights for anyone, they are violating the Constituation Rights of Freedom of the Press.

The press conference was given by private citizens on private property, there is no constitutional right to freedom of the press involved.

Criticizing the family for trying to control the press or criticizing the press for giving in to it is fair game but making it a freedom of speech issue is off the mark.

 

[cluciano63]

I believe in the end this case will have very much to do with family issues. And the press, I hope, will continue to investigate and report anything that might be pertinent to Kyron's disappearance and/or death.

Kaine Horman may not want certain things to come out, or attention diverted toward some other family issue as yet uncovered, but all will be revealed if this is indeed a family-related tragedy/crime and an "isolated case."

 

[sofia76]

That the press who fights so hard to protect their Constitutional Rights to Freedom of the Press willingly handed it over to a private citizen should scare all of us. The parents needed the press much more than the press needed this story.

I know this is just a little case of the press working with parents of a missing boy. However, there is a much bigger picture here. We only know about this deal because the parents banned another media outlet. It is that media that reported the true story. The media outlets that were not banned never reported that they were only reporting what the parents told them to report. They never reported the deal they made with the parents. They did not want their readers to know that their reporting was being censored even if it was just by the parents of a missing boy. If all the media in that room had agreed to the parents terms, we would not know.

The media who agreed to be censored was not just small town papers but national media as well. If they agree to be censored by the parents who need the media more than the media needs the story for what it nothing more than a press release, what other times are they agreeing to be censored to get a story? What deals are they making and not telling us about?

This puts the entire credibility, integrity and reputation of the media that allowed themselves to be censored for a non-story in question on other bigger stories. Now we have to ask is the story being reported accurately or was a deal made. The public will now question the truth of the reporting.

The Constitutional Right to Freedom of the Press belongs to the people. It insures that the people can trust the press to report accurately and truthfully without the Government controlling what the press reports. So any time the press gives up their Rights for anyone, they are violating the Constituation Rights of Freedom of the Press.

All the above is my opinion and only my opinion.

This is unrelated to Kyron's disappearance, but you make excellent, excellent points. There are some meta issues at play here. :clap:

 

[2goldfish]

That the press who fights so hard to protect their Constitutional Rights to Freedom of the Press willingly handed it over to a private citizen should scare all of us. The parents needed the press much more than the press needed this story.

I know this is just a little case of the press working with parents of a missing boy. However, there is a much bigger picture here. We only know about this deal because the parents banned another media outlet. It is that media that reported the true story. The media outlets that were not banned never reported that they were only reporting what the parents told them to report. They never reported the deal they made with the parents. They did not want their readers to know that their reporting was being censored even if it was just by the parents of a missing boy. If all the media in that room had agreed to the parents terms, we would not know.

The media who agreed to be censored was not just small town papers but national media as well. If they agree to be censored by the parents who need the media more than the media needs the story for what it nothing more than a press release, what other times are they agreeing to be censored to get a story? What deals are they making and not telling us about?

This puts the entire credibility, integrity and reputation of the media that allowed themselves to be censored for a non-story in question on other bigger stories. Now we have to ask is the story being reported accurately or was a deal made. The public will now question the truth of the reporting.

The Constitutional Right to Freedom of the Press belongs to the people. It insures that the people can trust the press to report accurately and truthfully without the Government controlling what the press reports. So any time the press gives up their Rights for anyone, they are violating the Constituation Rights of Freedom of the Press.

All the above is my opinion and only my opinion.

:yes:

absolutely beautiful & perfectly thought out post, deserves far more than just thanks.

 

[citigirl]

That the press who fights so hard to protect their Constitutional Rights to Freedom of the Press willingly handed it over to a private citizen should scare all of us. The parents needed the press much more than the press needed this story.

I know this is just a little case of the press working with parents of a missing boy. However, there is a much bigger picture here. We only know about this deal because the parents banned another media outlet. It is that media that reported the true story. The media outlets that were not banned never reported that they were only reporting what the parents told them to report. They never reported the deal they made with the parents. They did not want their readers to know that their reporting was being censored even if it was just by the parents of a missing boy. If all the media in that room had agreed to the parents terms, we would not know.

The media who agreed to be censored was not just small town papers but national media as well. If they agree to be censored by the parents who need the media more than the media needs the story for what it nothing more than a press release, what other times are they agreeing to be censored to get a story? What deals are they making and not telling us about?

This puts the entire credibility, integrity and reputation of the media that allowed themselves to be censored for a non-story in question on other bigger stories. Now we have to ask is the story being reported accurately or was a deal made. The public will now question the truth of the reporting.

The Constitutional Right to Freedom of the Press belongs to the people. It insures that the people can trust the press to report accurately and truthfully without the Government controlling what the press reports. So any time the press gives up their Rights for anyone, they are violating the Constituation Rights of Freedom of the Press.

All the above is my opinion and only my opinion.

What you say is my opinion also. The press has to remain independent in a free society.

But if the reporters thought they were agreeing to treat some comments as "off the record," I believe that happens all the time. I do not think most of the "ground rules" were unusual, except for the agreement that the conferences could be taped on Thursdays but not run until Fridays. That is the particular bit that I do not understand--both the reason for setting the rule (weekly anniversary?), and the fact that the TV stations, especially, will follow it.

 

[sofia76]

The press conference was given by private citizens on private property, there is no constitutional right to freedom of the press involved.

Criticizing the family for trying to control the press or criticizing the press for giving in to it is fair game but making it a freedom of speech issue is off the mark.

I don't think it's off the mark. It's totally within the family's right to set restrictive parameters. What I think 1Chump is saying - and what I agree with - is that we should be concerned when the press agrees to those parameters without protest and without ever informing the public that they have agreed to these parameters.

 

[Chili Fries]

I don't think it's off the mark. It's totally within the family's right to set restrictive parameters. What I think 1Chump is saying - and what I agree with - is that we should be concerned when the press agrees to those parameters without protest and without ever informing the public that they have agreed to these parameters.

I agree with that part but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech as granted by the Constitution.

 

[Faulkner]

The papers were excluded because Kyron's father didn't like what they printed which does make it, indirectly, a freedom of press issue. Trying to control the press is akin to attempting to supress their broad freedoms.

And freedom of speech is a citizen right, not a press right. The press is given broad freedoms in the Constitution that can not be abridged.

 

[cluciano63]

Maybe it happens far more often than we know, and we have WW to thank for bringing it to our attention

I'm not going to worry about it too much, only because much coverage to date has been flawed and confusing and sometimes, downright illiterate. We've debated certain quotes, paragraphs and sentences here on the threads to beat the band. So it's not like we have been treated to stellar, in-depth analysis up until now.

Big news will always break and for the little gossipy stuff, there is always WW.

 

[CCup]

I agree with Chili Fries, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If anyone of the news outlets present wanted to release thing they were asked not to, that totally could. They just wouldn't be invited back the next time.

I said this before, but I will say it again. Most of what they(the family) are saying and releasing is truly none of our(the publics) business. We don't need to know what they miss about Kyron or what is favorite food is or anything about their personal lives to be on the look-out for him.

I think we have been spoiled by past families sharing every possible detail about their lives and their missing child, and now we want this family to follow suit. But they don't want to do that and they don't have to it.

Don't get me wrong, I am one of the first to read any article about this family and it has helped me understand a little about each of them. But if I recognize/see Kyron tomorrow at Wal-Mart, it won't be because I read about their divorces, ROs, or their medical history. It will be because I have seen his picture plastered all over the news!

 

[Chili Fries]

The papers were excluded because Kyron's father didn't like what they printed which does make it, indirectly, a freedom of press issue. Trying to control the press is akin to attempting to supress their broad freedoms.

And freedom of speech is a citizen right, not a press right. The press is given broad freedoms in the Constitution that can not be abridged.

Doesn't mean you have to let every press outlet on your private property. Forcing that would be abridging the rights of the private property owner.

 

[Faulkner]

No one is saying that Kyron's father didn't have a right to exclude whomever he wanted from his presser and I said that clearly yesterday as well. (Although it wasn't held on his property, so this isn't a private property issue.)

It doesn't change the fact, though, that the papers were excluded because the father didn't like what they printed and the fact is that that indirectly makes it a freedom of press issue as well.

ETA: Sorry if this is confusing but I studied Constitutional law and this is my opinion based on that. Some scenarios have overlapping legal issues and just because Kyron's father had a technical legal right to exclude press members doesn't mean that it doesn't also indirectly infringe upon the broad freedoms granted to the press under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[CCup]

I'm confused!!!!!!

 

[cluciano63]

OK, so the family has the right to do what they did yesterday, I think we all agree on that. And the press has the right to either accept their conditions so they can be present at future Q&A sessions, or not.

All of this press management is why I do not believe LE had anything to do with the Hormans choosing to go this route. Because whether or not you approve of what Hormans are doing, it looks downright silly under the circumstances.

 

[scandi]

Maybe it happens far more often than we know, and we have WW to thank for bringing it to our attention

I'm not going to worry about it too much, only because much coverage to date has been flawed and confusing and sometimes, downright illiterate. We've debated certain quotes, paragraphs and sentences here on the threads to beat the band. So it's not like we have been treated to stellar, in-depth analysis up until now.

Big news will always break and for the little gossipy stuff, there is always WW.

Gossipy stuff? We'll see what they have and will print. And then we'll see if it pans out to have been the truth.

 

[Donjeta]

It's easier to attract bees with honey than with a baseball bat and the press is often present in big swarms so maybe the strategy could work with them too. If you don't want them to report the gossipy stuff, keep them busy by giving them something else to report.

 

[adh74]

I have two thoughts on this:

1) I think someone else mentioned (possibly in another thread...I can't keep them all straight anymore) that TH's attorney is known to use WW and Oregonian to help build his defense case. Perhaps that is why KH, KY, and TY didn't want those specific reporters there?

2) Perhaps those that remained in the room where actually given a lot more info in confidence, not to be reported publicly, about Kyron's whereabouts. DY said "Kyron is still alive", and the ghostly look on her face seemed as if maybe they had heard his voice or recently gotten some other "proof of life" or something. But WW and Oregonian have historically proven to be less than ethical (in their eyes), so they didn't want the new information to be shared with them, lest they leak it to the public.

 

[cluciano63]

OT, but I thought poor Desiree could barely bring herself to say the "Kyron is alive" phrase...she is trying so hard to convince herself. She also stumbled at the part about "extreme confidence" in how investigation is being handled.

 

[azwriter]

The press conference was given by private citizens on private property, there is no constitutional right to freedom of the press involved.

Criticizing the family for trying to control the press or criticizing the press for giving in to it is fair game but making it a freedom of speech issue is off the mark.

bbm, just the fact that it's titled a press conference makes it a matter for the the working established press. Also that the subject delt with is a police matter currently under investingation does make it a freedom of the press issue.

Why organize or call for a "press conference" if it is only for a selected group only?
Private property or private citizens or not, the press has a right to the information presented under what is labeled news or information about this boy's disappearance.
Regardless of whether a particular media outlet is physically admitted into the event or not, they do have the right to report on the information brought forward at the event.

jmo