— Michael Newall, Columnist, Philadelphia Inquirer
Report or help? When, how
to help in an on-scene crisis
By Rebekah Patton
Bulletin Correspondent
Crises across the country and across the globe remain too present in today’s news coverage. Whether the story is about school gun violence or other mass-casualty incidents, forest fires, or hurricanes, the crisis reporter has a heightened chance of covering a story in a high-risk and unpredictable setting.
Knowing what to do and how to do it might be unclear when a dangerous situation arises, and when the immediacy of covering the story is challenged by the immediacy of saving a life. The role of an on-scene journalist can often be torn between being a working reporter and a compassionate civilian.
In such situations, there is a question of what involvement by on-scene journalists is most useful, and what help might actually be counterproductive.
Patrick Lee Plaisance of Penn State University, a former journalist; Michael Newall, a columnist with the Philadelphia Inquirer; and Jeremy Rodorigo, an executive and responder at American Medical Response in Waterbury, Conn., shared their thoughts during an emotional and timely discussion on when and how to act safely and professionally in such circumstances.
More than 30 people attended the session Friday, Feb. 23, at the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s winter convention at the Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel.
‘If it becomes a crime scene before your eyes, there is an inherent duty to step away from the camera and help out. Who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm if you were to not act? That is when you need to help.’
— Patrick Lee Plaisance, Professor, College of Communications, Penn State University
Plaisance, a professor at the College of Communications at Penn State University, initiated the discussion by discussing how and when journalists should intervene in a time of imminent danger.
He said it is best to intervene when the threat is imminent, and when you can help others avoid that threat.
“If it becomes a crime scene before your eyes, there is an inherent duty to step away from the camera and help out,” Plaisance said. “Who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm if you were to not act? That is when you need to help.”
“The journalist is also a human being,” Plaisance said. “Help out if you can.”
But Plaisance said that sometimes the best form of helping is recording the scene. Sometimes, the best intervention is telling the story.
One of his examples: During one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent demonstrations in the early 1960s, sheriff’s deputies were throwing children to the ground. An on-scene photographer swung his camera onto his back on impulse and then became involved in shielding the children from harm, Plaisance said.
Plaisance said King witnessed the event and said to the photographer: “The world doesn’t know this happened, because you didn’t photograph it. I’m not being cold-blooded about it, but it is so much more important for you to take a picture of us getting beaten up than for you to be another person joining in the fray.”
Plaisance said: “Understand that the photographing and recording may be the most effective way of intervening at all. You need to realize what kind of aid would be most valuable in the situation and also for the future.”
He reminded the audience that the role of the journalist is not to act as a first responder; journalists should not intervene when they might endanger a life, including their own.
Credibility is also important when covering a story, Plaisance said. Adhering to being an impartial observer is a critical component in journalistic credibility, he said.
Newall covers the opioid epidemic in Philadelphia. Newall said between his experience with losing a brother to a heroin overdose and his firsthand experience of witnessing the impact that the opioid epidemic has caused in Philadelphia, he was compelled to become certified in administration of Narcan, the heroin antidote.
“The difference between life and death for someone in Philadelphia could be a stranger with Narcan,” Newall said.
Newall said he has successfully administered Narcan twice in Philadelphia.
His goal as a columnist is to break down the stigma of opioid addiction and overdose.
Rodorigo, a trainer of emergency medical technicians, concluded the session with a tutorial on the Stop the Bleed campaign, which involves bleeding control kits that are planned to be used in stadiums and heavily populated areas.
“There is a need for people to learn how to stop bleeding,” Rodorigo said.
The kits Rodorigo presented included emergency supplies with visual and written directions. The kits are intended to be used by trained staff at the sites, and by laymen who can open a kit and help respond to an emergency. Tourniquets, gloves, shears to cut off clothing, and gauze saturated with a hemostatic “quick-clot” were a few of the supplies.
Rodorigo said the average response time for his ambulance is seven minutes and 50 seconds for a call about severe medical emergency, such as a heart attack, stroke, or mass-casualty incident. Preparing for the worst with the emergency kits could save countless lives, he said.
John Voket, associate editor of The Newtown (Conn.) Bee and the newly elected NENPA president, moderated the session.
He said, “’Keep writing, keep shooting, don’t get involved’ is all old-age thinking.”
The session concluded with a question from an audience member: “What do you say to a victim when you are trying to help them?”
Rodorigo said: “Tell them you are trying to help them, and you are here with them.”
Even if the victim is unconscious, it is always best to talk to the victim in a calm tone, and explain what you are doing and how you are helping them, he said.
The audience listened in silence.
The key to saving public notices is getting people to care, Henninger said.
Henry Frankel
William Alfred Dempster Jr. 
Willie Wright Jr.
Horace ‘Rambo’ Bacon Jr.
Erna Jane ‘E.J.’ Silke
Margaret A. Coulombe
Francis Gros ‘Lou’ Louis
Protect journalists with the same laws that protect us all
Gene Policinski
Inside the First Amendment
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org.
Follow him on Twitter:
@genefac
I understand the motivation behind the just-proposed Journalist Protection Act, which would make it a federal crime to attack those involved in reporting the news. The legislation comes at a time of particularly vocal attacks on news operations and individual reporters, many of which stem from the highest office in the land.
I admire the goal — preventing or penalizing misguided thugs who would censor through violence. And I salute U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, for introducing it in an era in which support for journalism is at an all-time low.
But some part of me — the free press advocate in me — hopes the proposed act never becomes law. Not because journalists don’t need protection, but because I fear unintended consequences. As the old maxim goes, “No good deed goes unpunished.”
The great power, and the proper position, of a free press has always been that it represents “the people.” The press is — simply and magnificently — not a group apart, but part of that group. It is not made up of “elites” or players united in some grand conspiracy to control the news or steer the nation, as some grandstanding politicians claim, but a disjointed gaggle of vocal, well-informed fellow citizens, who are employed to report on behalf of us all. Those who would damage democracy’s checks and balances by isolating the “watchdogs on government” from fellow citizens would like nothing better than to have journalists themselves give credence to such a separation.
In a Feb. 5 news release, Swalwell makes his good case for the Journalist Protection Act: “President Donald Trump’s campaign and administration have created a toxic atmosphere. It’s not just about labeling reports of his constant falsehoods as #FakeNews — it’s his casting of media personalities and outlets as anti-American targets, and encouraging people to engage in violence.”
Swalwell, while conceding that not all attacks against journalists in the United States can be connected to Trump, said nonetheless that “such antagonistic communications help encourage others to think, regardless of their views, that violence against people engaged in journalism is more acceptable.”
Journalism groups also noted, in the news release, the dangers their members now face.
Broadcasters in the field often work alone or with a single colleague, said Charlie Braico, president of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. “With their expensive and cumbersome equipment, they are easy and tempting prey for anti-media extremists and thieves.”
“Dozens of physical assaults on journalists doing their jobs were documented by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in 2017,” said Rick Blum, director of News Media for Open Government. “Physical violence and intimidation should never get in the way of covering police, protesters, presidents and other public matters.”
The tracker that Blum refers to is a new database, launched and operated by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which logs arrests, harassment and physical attacks on journalists. As of Feb. 7, it showed that since January 2017, 30 reporters in the United States have been attacked while covering protests and two reporters had been assaulted by politicians. (Note: The Newseum is among the journalism groups supporting the database project.)
Globally, the situation is much grimmer: According to Freedom House, an international freedom advocacy group, barely 13 percent of the world’s population lives in nations where the press is considered free. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports two journalists killed thus far in 2018, 262 imprisoned since 2017, and 58 journalists missing around the world.
So to all those critics who already are attacking Swalwell’s bill as unneeded or rooted in partisan politics — sorry, but the threat to journalists is real from those who consider violence an acceptable form of press criticism.
Still, we should be wary of giving journalists a special place in the zone of laws that already protect us all from assault, battery or worse. Granted, the proposed act could be an alternative when local officials refuse to follow up on an attack — or do so ineffectively. But I like the old newsgathering maxim that “journalists have no more rights than anyone else … but also have no fewer rights.”
Better to encourage police and prosecutors to do their jobs zealously when an attack occurs. Better we hold accountable politicians and others who — for political gain or other unscrupulous motives — choose to simply taunt the news media rather than doing the hard work of legitimate, fact-based criticism.
The Journalist Protection Act is prompted by sincere and worthy motives — and there is a sickness in the land today that condones and encourages threats and violence against journalists. But a free press is better protected by laws that protect us all.