Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
VA Officials Seize Reporter's Equipment
David Schultz, a reporter for the NPR affiliate WAMU in D.C., had his microphone, headphones, and a digital recorder seized by police and PR reps from the Veterans Administration when he interviewed veteran Tommy Canady at a public town hall meeting in D.C. yesterday.
Canady was attempting to tell Schultz about the poor treatment he says he's been getting from the VA hospital. VA officials claim Schultz didn't identify himself as a reporter, failed to obtain a VA-approved waiver before speaking with Canady, was both exploiting Canady and violating Canady's right to medical privacy.
After the police confiscated Schultz's equipment, Canady gave Schultz his phone number and asked him to call him, which according to Schultz only further angered VA officials at the event.
Canady gave a different account of the incident than the VA when Schultz's report aired today.
"It makes me mad, because I'm grown, and I'll talk to whoever I want to. You know what I mean? And it makes me feel like you have something to hide. That you're worried that something might get out that you don't want to get out. I think it's un-American. I really do."
One VA official told Schultz he would not be prosecuted if he voluntarily left the public event. Which sounds a lot like a threat to prosecute him if he stayed. The VA still hasn't returned Schultz's equipment.
Naga Sadow|4.9.09 @ 11:12PM|#
What. The. Fuck. What the fuck was the VA's position again? Didn't identify himself as a reporter? He needed a waiver as well? I'm fucking blown away by this bullshit.
|4.9.09 @ 11:17PM|#
First Amendment violation. Think NPR will have the balls to take this up against...anyone?
Elemenope|4.9.09 @ 11:31PM|#
First Amendment violation. Think NPR will have the balls to
take this up against...anyone?
Back in my college days a friend of mine who was a reporter for the
college rag refused to leave an (improperly) closed session of some
policy-making body, and then when they demanded he leave, he
taunted them to have the cops drag him out of the room, as he
wasn't leaving any other way.
If he knows where to take a stand, what the fuck is wrong with
"adult" reporters and their news outfits that they capitulate so
easily?
hotsauce|4.9.09 @ 11:40PM|#
A pre-approved waiver to speak with a patient? An adult patient? You know, the one currently having a peaceful, voluntary conversation with the dude. Who gives a fuck if he's a reporter, with NPR, or just some schmoe from the street?
Elemenope|4.9.09 @ 11:46PM|#
And it was a goddamned town hall meeting, not a hospital bedroom (not like that ought to matter either, but seriously, a town hall meeting?)
|4.10.09 @ 12:17AM|#
If Kennedy is still a patient at the VA, he needs to watch out for himself - or someone needs to look out for him. Once you consent to be treated at a VA hospital they can do just about anything they want with you, if they deem it "medically justified" - including locking you up in the psycho ward for an evaluation ("observation".)
Hugh Akston|4.10.09 @ 12:21AM|#
Has Schultz filed a criminal complaint for the theft of his
equipment?
No need. After the VA took his equipment, they peeled some bills
out of their money clip and tossed them at him.
|4.10.09 @ 1:45AM|#
This happened in America, right? The America I grew up in,
right?
Got one thing to say, "I'm coming to join you, Elizabeth! ..."
Akira|4.10.09 @ 5:35AM|#
No need. After the VA took his equipment, they peeled some
bills out of their money clip and tossed them at him.
Awesome.
|4.10.09 @ 6:01AM|#
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
OeNB Bank in WIEN
Durch die Brisanz der Affäre rund um die Immobilienfirma Meinl
European Land (MEL, heute Atrium Real Estate) ist auch der
Wirtschaftsprüfer Philip Göth wieder ins Zentrum des öffentlichen
Interesses gerückt.
Göth sitzt im Aufsichtsgremium der Oesterreichischen Nationalbank
(OeNB) - dem Generalrat - und hat Ende 2006 per Gutachten den
börsegehandelten MEL-Papieren bescheinigt, "zur teilweisen
Veranlagung von Mündelgeld" geeignet zu sein. Mittlerweile haben
Anleger viel Geld mit dem verloren, was Göth als "MEL-Aktie"
bezeichnete, obwohl es sich dabei um Zertifikate gehandelt hat.
Konsumentenschützer werfen Meinl vor, zu Unrecht mit der
Mündelsicherheit geworben zu haben.
Es könne nicht sein, dass Göth weiterhin als Generalrat der OeNB
tätig sei, poltert SPÖ-Finanzsprecher Jan Krainer. Neben dem
MEL-Gutachten stößt sich Krainer auch an Göths Rolle als
Aufsichtsrat der Bank Medici - jenes Wiener Institutes, das Fonds
des mutmaßlichen US-Milliardenbetrügers Bernard Madoff vertrieben
hat.
|4.10.09 @ 7:10AM|#
This press equipment confiscation reminds me of the scene in 'Zhivago' wherein the Czar instructs his men to destroy the printing presses which are printing communiques adverse to him. The Czar's advisor responds, yes, we can destroy the presses 'Sire', but not ideas.
tarran|4.10.09 @ 8:01AM|#
If he knows where to take a stand, what the fuck is wrong with "adult" reporters and their news outfits that they capitulate so easily?
Well, for one thing, he's an NPR reporter working in Washington DC.
Unless he play's nice with his masters, they'll stop inviting him
to their rallies and he'll lose his job.
MNG|4.10.09 @ 8:13AM|#
How do you address this kind of outrage? You go to the
courts.
And how do you think ol' Daddy Scalia and the conservative
Get-Fresh Crew on the Court would rule on this?
MNG|4.10.09 @ 8:17AM|#
"what the fuck is wrong with "adult" reporters and their news
outfits that they capitulate so easily"
I disagree. What was the guy supposed to do, physically clutch his
mic and start screaming about the value of the First Amendment?
That would have got him arrested or physically removed.
No, he should 1. report what happened in his story (which he
did)
and 2. file suit.
The latter is important because we need precedent to be set down to
protect the next guy and inspire a little fear in the next
administrator who wants to do something like this.
And of course a conservative commentator will lament the "litigous
nature" of our society when he does so, but what can you do...
SpongePaul|4.10.09 @ 8:29AM|#
err. if the veteran was talking to the reporter, there was no violation of his medical privacy. he waived it the second he started talking. and for the people to take away the equipment and recording. they need to be sued, for violations of civil rights. if it were goverment officials, then the lawsuit still needs to be brought. although i am under the opression that i can not sue the goverment. but when they violate the rights they are supposed to protect, then we got to do something
Marcello|4.10.09 @ 8:37AM|#
> VA officials claim Schultz didn't
> identify himself as a reporter
Because poor Tommy Kennedy would have NO idea that the guy with
the microphone and battery-powered recording equipment and radio
announcer's voice could possibly be a reporter...
|4.10.09 @ 8:37AM|#
If NPR can't learn and publish what's wrong with VA 'health
care', we won't know what will be disagreeable about the single
payer solution to the 'health care crisis'.
Rationing, rules, administrative beaurocracy: Publicizing the VA
system will make Dilbert's company look efficient, competent and
compassionate.
tarran|4.10.09 @ 8:42AM|#
MNG,
There is a great deal of difference between clutching the
microphone while screaming and cooperating and suing after the
fact. It's called civil disobedience - as Elemonope was pointing
out.
He should have been steadfast yet polite - like the guys who
practiced civil disobediance in the Civil rights movement in the
1960's.
MNG|4.10.09 @ 8:46AM|#
tarran
I'd admire him if he did what you were talking about, sure, but I
think if he reported it and looks into his legal rights then he has
done a good job.
The Angry Optimist|4.10.09 @ 8:49AM|#
The massive power of the federal government isn't the fault of conservatives, MNG. Nice try, though.
dhex|4.10.09 @ 9:04AM|#
i'm not a hipaa lawyer, though i do deal with hipaa every day. it covers healthcare providers, not the patients themselves. i don't see how he could violate his own medical privacy.
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 9:05AM|#
Fair enough. I should say I find it hilarious when the liberals, like Stevens, on the Court get their nose out of joint about state overreach...I mean, if you're going to classify smoking marijuana in your own home as "interstate commerce", you shouldn't be all that surprised...
|4.10.09 @ 9:08AM|#
dhex is right. I'm not aware of any privacy law that requires
the consumer/patient to refrain from sharing information about
himself. With the First Amendment, that would be hard to do,
anyway.
There could be contractual restrictions on the patient, I suppose,
though I doubt it. And, of course, information on a soldier's
wounds could be classified as implicating national security.
Crazy.
|4.10.09 @ 9:10AM|#
As far as the Court is concerned, the liberal justices have done
much more to support government growth and overreach than the
conservative judges, except in Fourth Amendment (and related)
jurisprudence. Neither side has clean hands, but at least the idea
of limited government flows out of the pens of the more
conservative justices on occasion.
Wish there were a libertarian or two on the Court.
Radley Balko|4.10.09 @ 9:13AM|#
I mean, if you're going to classify smoking marijuana in
your own home as "interstate commerce", you shouldn't be all that
surprised...
You do know that had Scalia and Kennedy voted correctly,
Raich would have gone the other way, right?
|4.10.09 @ 9:23AM|#
Yes, and conservative judges are really good at warping their good beliefs--limited government. federalism--when drugs are on the line.
|4.10.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Bureaucrat = Petty tyrant.
A soldier talking about freedom and rights.
"It makes me mad, because I'm grown, and I'll talk to whoever I want to. You know what I mean? And it makes me feel like you have something to hide. That you're worried that something might get out that you don't want to get out. I think it's un-American. I really do."
That is so last century.
|4.10.09 @ 9:41AM|#
For the record -
This is a shining example of government run health care provider's
attitude.
Let's get everybody into a system like this.
_________________________________________________
Anybody want to bet the fuckwad idiot bureaucrat loses his job,
gets an unpaid vacation or is demoted?
Didn't think so.
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 9:47AM|#
You do know that had Scalia and Kennedy voted correctly,
Raich would have gone the other way, right?
Of course. 6-3, with O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas manning the
dissent.
The fact is that Kennedy makes shit up and Scalia, as said above,
is all about the Big State. I wasn't saying that conservatives are
the white knights in all this, but what Administration crammed
Wickard v. Fillburn down the collective throat of the
nation?
CaptainSmartass|4.10.09 @ 10:16AM|#
Yet another variant on the Streisand
effect. By preventing this reported from talking to the vet in
question, even more people have heard of the story and could be
interested in the VA's treatment of veterans. While if the VA and
police had done nothing, only the people who heard the initial
report would've known about the interview.
When will people in authority learn, sometimes it's just better not
to get involved in these kinds of shenanigans?
CaptainSmartass|4.10.09 @ 10:22AM|#
although i am under the opression that i can not sue the goverment. but when they violate the rights they are supposed to protect, then we got to do something
Government employees have limited sovereign immunity. So while they
can't be sued for performing necessary parts of their jobs (like
you can't sue a police office who tases you, if it was really
necessary), they can still be sued for violating your civil
rights.
Wandering Wonderer|4.10.09 @ 10:35AM|#
The VA is weird about stuff. A few years ago I had a job accumulating information for in-car GPS systems. I was in the parking lot of a VA hospital and took a picture of their street sign - just the sign by itself, the one, you know, by the street. Out of nowhere a Federal policeman pops up and demands to know what I am doing, tells me to erase the photo or have my camera confiscated (I believe his rationale was ye olde fictionale 9/11 anti-photography laws). My company told me to comply with such requests as long as I was on Federal property, so I complied, crossed the street, took the picture and went on my way. So, if you are ever near the University of Pittsburgh, for God's sake don't look at the VA hospital, it's sekrit!
techreseller|4.10.09 @ 10:47AM|#
I heard the original and follow up reports on NPR. NPR as an organization has got to follow up on this and make sure that the VA understands that the reason that man was injured in the first place is to defend the right of the reporter to do exactly what he was doing. This one could be big.
|4.10.09 @ 10:55AM|#
National Proletarian Radio? Attacking in full force a Democratic government? I think not.
Medic|4.10.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Tommy Kennedy Needs to join IVAW.
Iraq veterans against WAR.
He can have as alarge as a fourm as he wants.
The VA sucks.
The care is horrible. ( They are short handed and half the staff
they have hardly speaks english, great fro morale let me tell
you.)
Only when the Veterans of America stand togther and say NO this
must stop, and turn their backs on that turn coat uncle sam will
anything change.
Don't just get mad, Stand up and rock the BOAT!
Since I have had private insurance I will NEVER go back.
|4.10.09 @ 11:54AM|#
VA went pretty nutty about Patient Privacy in general after the
lost lap-top incident and the never-ending flogging they too over
it. As a military PAO I took reporters into areas where Top Secret
material was handled (after the area was responsibly scrubbed) with
little to no fanfare. Try doing the same thing at a VA hospital and
Patient Privacy comes down like an Iron Curtain.
The funny thing is, the forms are intended to ensure that patients
have authorized VA to use their images and statements - preventing
VA from invading Patient Privacy and protecting VA from charges of
patient privacy invasion. They're not designed to bind the patient
or the reporter, but to CYA the VA. (So to speak!)
If the patient and the reporter had filled out the consent forms -
which protect the VA from charges that they allowed violation of
patient privacy by letting a reporter interview patients at one of
their events without making an effort to protect the patient -
everything would probably have been copacetic.
(Another thing to consider is that plenty of VA patients have
mental illnesses that could prove problematic if the patient
decides to sue and claim he wasn't competent to sign the release.
The patient admitted to PTSD, and that may be only the tip of the
iceberg. The PA types might have known that from the
get-go...)
Also, VA will fire its PAOs for anything that even appears to be
patient-privacy related info without the magical waiver form
(firing government workers can be done, despite the general belief
that it's impossible) so you can hardly blame the Public Affairs
folks for being over-zealous. They have families to feed,
too.
One final thing to consider is that if a reporter is invited to an
event (by the press release), part of showing up to cover the event
is basically a "gentleman's agreement" to abide by the rules of the
hosting organization. (See also, press conferences, media
opportunities, etc.)
The reporter clearly didn't understand the fundamental rules of
engagement, which the PA folks should have briefed him on. But if
you don't RSVP to the PA types, they can't let you know what the
ground rules are... On the other hand, they could have just kept
the press release to themselves - which I think shows a willingness
to be open that is being overlooked in all of this.
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 1:29PM|#
oh lord "Just sayin...", take the apologia, Baghdad Bob schtick
somewhere else. There's a big difference between "PA notifying you
of the ground rules" and "seizing a reporter's camera".
You're just an embarrassing apologist.
|4.10.09 @ 2:41PM|#
TAO - Wow. You've got the "Angry" part down. Nowhere did I say
that taking the guy's camera was the right thing to do.
Do you really think that this isn't being played up by the
reporter? This is more attention than the guy has ever gotten in
his life, all for being asked to hand over his digital tape
recorder in a misguided attempt to protect patient privacy.
Probably by a little blonde female PAO who weighs an intimidating
120 lbs.
jtuf|4.10.09 @ 3:35PM|#
This is creepy. The only other time I've seen health care professionals that defensive about keeping medical records private against a patient's wishes is in psychiatric wards. If the VA department is that reluctant to allow vets to describe their condition, I shudder to think what is going on there.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245