Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF Bay Guardian reporter ejected from NAB conference
A Bay Guardian reporter was forcibly ejected from the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in San Francisco two days after the paper published a front-page news package critical of the NAB.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2000 12:45PM
Contact: Bruce B. Brugmann, Tim Redmond 415-255-3100
Bay Guardian reporter ejected from NAB Convention
A Bay Guardian reporter was forcibly ejected from the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in San Francisco two days after the paper published a front-page news package critical of the NAB.
Reporter Steve Rhodes was stripped of his press credential and physically removed the Moscone Center convention by two police officers summoned by NAB officals.
The NAB has also revoked the credentials of Jenesse Miller and other credentialed reporters from the Independent Media Center.
Rhodes was not disturbing the convention, engaging in any form of protest or doing anything illegal. He was simply covering the event.
The decision to remove him apparently was made by NAB official Jack Knubel, who told Rhodes that he "was part of the problem."
Rhodes was wearing a press credential issued at the start of the convention by the NAB. The press badge was removed from his possession by the San Francisco Police and turned over to NAB security.
Bay Guardian editor and publisher Bruce B. Brugmann issued the following statement:
"We are appalled by the arrogance of the nation's largest broadcast group (the National Association of Broadcasters) in forcibly ejecting our credentialed reporter from the conference and seizing his press credentials.
This is a group using the public airwaves, meeting in San Francisco's public convention center, in an annual conference to which they invited scores of reporters.
We strongly protest this act of censorship against a newspaper whose only apparent sin is to have published in its current edition a front page package critical of the NAB.
We also strongly protest the NAB pulling press credentialed reporters from Jenesse Miller and other credentialed reporters from the Independent Media Center.
This unprofessional conduct exemplifies the attitude of the nation's monopoly broadcast media who, as the Bay Guardian points out this week, have a record of squelching alternative points of view.
We are protesting this to the NAB board and I am personally demanding the immediate opportunity to address the board on this issue. Moreover, we are calling for the immediate return of the press credentials of Steve Rhodes and credentialed IMC reporters, an apology from the NAB, and a written policy statement from the board insuring that no reporter will ever again be denied access to a NAB program or event on the basis of politics."
CC:
Appropriate Senate and House Committees
Federal Communications Commission
Media critics and reporters for the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, American Journalism Review, Brills Content, and the newsletter and website for the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, and other mainstream and alternative publications
Bay Area Congressional Delegation
California First Amendment Coalition
Freedom of Information Committee, Society of Professional Journalists
September 22, 2000 12:45PM
Contact: Bruce B. Brugmann, Tim Redmond 415-255-3100
Bay Guardian reporter ejected from NAB Convention
A Bay Guardian reporter was forcibly ejected from the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in San Francisco two days after the paper published a front-page news package critical of the NAB.
Reporter Steve Rhodes was stripped of his press credential and physically removed the Moscone Center convention by two police officers summoned by NAB officals.
The NAB has also revoked the credentials of Jenesse Miller and other credentialed reporters from the Independent Media Center.
Rhodes was not disturbing the convention, engaging in any form of protest or doing anything illegal. He was simply covering the event.
The decision to remove him apparently was made by NAB official Jack Knubel, who told Rhodes that he "was part of the problem."
Rhodes was wearing a press credential issued at the start of the convention by the NAB. The press badge was removed from his possession by the San Francisco Police and turned over to NAB security.
Bay Guardian editor and publisher Bruce B. Brugmann issued the following statement:
"We are appalled by the arrogance of the nation's largest broadcast group (the National Association of Broadcasters) in forcibly ejecting our credentialed reporter from the conference and seizing his press credentials.
This is a group using the public airwaves, meeting in San Francisco's public convention center, in an annual conference to which they invited scores of reporters.
We strongly protest this act of censorship against a newspaper whose only apparent sin is to have published in its current edition a front page package critical of the NAB.
We also strongly protest the NAB pulling press credentialed reporters from Jenesse Miller and other credentialed reporters from the Independent Media Center.
This unprofessional conduct exemplifies the attitude of the nation's monopoly broadcast media who, as the Bay Guardian points out this week, have a record of squelching alternative points of view.
We are protesting this to the NAB board and I am personally demanding the immediate opportunity to address the board on this issue. Moreover, we are calling for the immediate return of the press credentials of Steve Rhodes and credentialed IMC reporters, an apology from the NAB, and a written policy statement from the board insuring that no reporter will ever again be denied access to a NAB program or event on the basis of politics."
CC:
Appropriate Senate and House Committees
Federal Communications Commission
Media critics and reporters for the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, American Journalism Review, Brills Content, and the newsletter and website for the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, and other mainstream and alternative publications
Bay Area Congressional Delegation
California First Amendment Coalition
Freedom of Information Committee, Society of Professional Journalists
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
thanks for helping to bring light to this stuff...i would be in the dark about a lot of things if not for independent media folks like the guardian and indymedia
thanks once again, see ya on the streets tomorrow - chuck
thanks once again, see ya on the streets tomorrow - chuck
As one of the reporters to get my credentials yanked, I'm really glad someone is taking the NAB to task for their inappropriate and irresponsible actions. Thanks.
Commercial radio is a nasty business, full of nasty people, most of whom become members of NAB. Look at the faces on these people inside Moscone. Look how they dress, talk, and think. This is not a group with a heavy committment to free speech.
I also thank the various IMCs for bringing behavior like this to light. This is a huge change from the way "news" used to be reported in the United States, when everyone got away with this crap because it was hidden from view.
..-. ..- -.-. -.- -. .- -...
I also thank the various IMCs for bringing behavior like this to light. This is a huge change from the way "news" used to be reported in the United States, when everyone got away with this crap because it was hidden from view.
..-. ..- -.-. -.- -. .- -...
Yeah, I saw that pic of those guys in the moscone center, with the big
guts all swolen and hanging and stuff. It kinda reminded me of a still
from a quentin tarantino movie where the radio mafia is all gathered
around together to celebrate the years booty that they 'apropriated'
They might start saying:
NABer1: Yeah, we got several million bucks worth of digital TV spectrum,
which we can now decide to use for fractional non-TV services like selling
internet over the airwaves, we'll own the internet just you wait and see,
and we got over $600million in presidential campaign advertisment funding
that we by rights should have given to the candidates for free to ease this
crazy campaign financing upward spiral we love so much, and ugh, lest we
forget the telecom act of 1996 that allowed us to suck up everything and
turn stations into barganing chips after we turn them over and shake all the
moms and pops out of them, heh heh, and yet these mealy mouthed,
wooley headed, bleeding heart liberals assume that they can tug on
supermans cape and take part of our airwaves back to broadcast their
pinko commie rhetoric under the disguise of being radio for their community.
You want community radio, you put up a goddamned 100,000 watt plant.
Thats what I call community radio.
NABer2: And we all know that no advertiser in their right mind would pay
one cent to sponsor their dreck. So why even bother if there is no money
to be made? They sound like a waste of spectrum to me. Non-producing
specturm lowers the adjacent property values for us all.
NABer1: Thats right. These punks come in here and chain themselves together
and start chanting: Whos airwaves? Our airwaves! They don't know who they
are messing with. They are going to feel the hurt of the greasy palm. Grease
a palm here, another there, and pretty soon that money starts talking and
those LPFM assholes start walking. Yeah, I got your LPFM hanging, right here.
NABer2: Heheh thats funny. LPFM is only going to go to a few churches, if
that. These people are probably the microradio bunch that started the problem
to begin with.
NABer1: Well I have a little surprise for them, and their lawyers who had the
audacity to get an initial ruling against us in the 9th circuit, before we had
a chance to grease that situation too. Just wait until their lawyers show up to
try to talk to them or spring them from the jail we are in the process of sending
them to. Just wait, this should be good...
guts all swolen and hanging and stuff. It kinda reminded me of a still
from a quentin tarantino movie where the radio mafia is all gathered
around together to celebrate the years booty that they 'apropriated'
They might start saying:
NABer1: Yeah, we got several million bucks worth of digital TV spectrum,
which we can now decide to use for fractional non-TV services like selling
internet over the airwaves, we'll own the internet just you wait and see,
and we got over $600million in presidential campaign advertisment funding
that we by rights should have given to the candidates for free to ease this
crazy campaign financing upward spiral we love so much, and ugh, lest we
forget the telecom act of 1996 that allowed us to suck up everything and
turn stations into barganing chips after we turn them over and shake all the
moms and pops out of them, heh heh, and yet these mealy mouthed,
wooley headed, bleeding heart liberals assume that they can tug on
supermans cape and take part of our airwaves back to broadcast their
pinko commie rhetoric under the disguise of being radio for their community.
You want community radio, you put up a goddamned 100,000 watt plant.
Thats what I call community radio.
NABer2: And we all know that no advertiser in their right mind would pay
one cent to sponsor their dreck. So why even bother if there is no money
to be made? They sound like a waste of spectrum to me. Non-producing
specturm lowers the adjacent property values for us all.
NABer1: Thats right. These punks come in here and chain themselves together
and start chanting: Whos airwaves? Our airwaves! They don't know who they
are messing with. They are going to feel the hurt of the greasy palm. Grease
a palm here, another there, and pretty soon that money starts talking and
those LPFM assholes start walking. Yeah, I got your LPFM hanging, right here.
NABer2: Heheh thats funny. LPFM is only going to go to a few churches, if
that. These people are probably the microradio bunch that started the problem
to begin with.
NABer1: Well I have a little surprise for them, and their lawyers who had the
audacity to get an initial ruling against us in the 9th circuit, before we had
a chance to grease that situation too. Just wait until their lawyers show up to
try to talk to them or spring them from the jail we are in the process of sending
them to. Just wait, this should be good...
September 19,2001
President Bush PSM Skycaps at UAL
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. c/o Larry T. Holt
Washington, DC 77 Paloma Ave. #208
Pacifica, CA 94044
Dear Mr. President:
We are a group of skycaps working for a vendor, providing service for United Airlines in San Francisco, CA. We have an average of twenty-five years of experience working in the airline industry. During this period, most of us have developed our professional skills to the extent that we are experts at what we do. We take pride in the effective service and information that we provide for the traveling public.
Above all, we take pride in contributing to airline safety. We are a part of this industry, and there is not a day when one of our kids, grandchildren, or mothers and fathers are not on a domestic flight. That is one important reason why we are also stakeholders in the FAA’s heightened security efforts.
However, we are being made political scapegoats by the FAA’s knee jerk reaction to this horrific event on September 11th: ‘to make people feel better and to retain confidence in the system.’ In the last few days, since the terrorist attack on our country, we have not been allowed to check baggage curbside as we have done for years. Ticket agents now exclusively perform the baggage check in process.
The following Wall Street Journal quotation dated December 20, 1995, reveals the skewed frame of reference of "some security experts" that question our collective integrity. This unprecedented article appeared on the front and center of the Wall Street Journal December 20, 1995, and in the weeks to follow, the San Francisco local newspapers, and even The National Enquirer printed it almost verbatim.
"Skycaps also have become the first line of defense against terrorists at most U.S. airports - a fact some security experts find frightening. Federal authorities now require skycaps to check passengers’ picture IDs, ask questions about luggage and even decipher arcane coding to check whether travelers paid cash for tickets, which is a warning sign. Some security experts question whether skycaps can be trusted to grill a customer who is holding forth a $20 tip."
Throughout the history of the airline industry, skycaps have struggled against this undercurrent of impropriety, and of course, that is perpetuated by the fact that we accept tips. That article was tainted with the journalist’s intoxicating obsession with skycaps’ tip income. The Wall Street Journal’s stereotypical blanket statement about skycaps is no more truthful than it otherwise would be if one were to make a similar statement about ticket agent’s flaws. Just because a few airline ticket agents have been implicated in the theft of ticket refunds and other forms of ticketing fraud, would not warrant the sweeping indictment the media had applied to skycaps.
Here in San Francisco, United Airlines customer service department has recently had a 60% turnover rate. How secure is that? Conversely, the turnover rate for skycaps is
negligible. While the media analyzes the events accountable for the acts of war against our country, why are there no questions and analysis regarding the skycap issue? The radio, television and print media sources discuss the plight of America’s skycaps in a tone of matter-of-factness, almost as though they were reporting the score of an athletic event, with little empathy for those affected. We are the only occupation in America to incur the FAA’s wrath, and thus encountering such harsh consequences. If it has been deemed by the FAA that checking bags at curbside is compromising the safety of American passengers, why can we not check bags inside?
From what I have read so far, nothing can be linked to skycap check-in activities. What happened September 11th can be attributed to the following: intelligence failures; insecure cockpit doors; lapses in airport security screening; and breeches of secured airport tarmacs by unauthorized people. The people who hold these positions are still working and their classifications are not being casually eliminated.
As an attempt to humanize our classification, I will familiarize you with who we are. Many of us are parents and grandparents, husbands and wives. Among the Skycaps, some have undergraduate and graduate degrees in business, law, and economics and sociology. And there are some skycaps that have taken courses in mechanics, computers and electronics. One of us, here in San Francisco, is a World War II veteran. Thus, the Department of Transportation’s policy of prohibiting skycaps from performing this task is preposterous and harmful to innocent people, especially to the extent that it emerges from the statement of stereotyped views of skycaps in the Wall Street Journal article as being intellectually and ethically challenged.
We do not have powerful union representation or spokespersons to articulate what we would like to prevent. This is an elimination of our jobs. Mr. President, we want to work productively. We invite the opportunity to obtain additional training to perform our jobs more proficiently, whatever it takes to comply with the heightened security measures. We assure you that we will strive to complement this nation’s airline security standards. We are compelled to state our case to you as our country’s leader. We can only hope for your wise and compassionate consideration enabling us to continue safely working in the airline industry.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read our plea.
Sincerely,
Larry T. Holt
PSM skycaps at United Airlines in San Francisco, CA
cc: Honorable Norm Mineta, Department of Transportation, Honorable John Mica, chairman of the House of Representatives’ aviation subcommittee, Mr. John Martin, Director of Airports - SFO Airports Commission SFIA.
President Bush PSM Skycaps at UAL
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. c/o Larry T. Holt
Washington, DC 77 Paloma Ave. #208
Pacifica, CA 94044
Dear Mr. President:
We are a group of skycaps working for a vendor, providing service for United Airlines in San Francisco, CA. We have an average of twenty-five years of experience working in the airline industry. During this period, most of us have developed our professional skills to the extent that we are experts at what we do. We take pride in the effective service and information that we provide for the traveling public.
Above all, we take pride in contributing to airline safety. We are a part of this industry, and there is not a day when one of our kids, grandchildren, or mothers and fathers are not on a domestic flight. That is one important reason why we are also stakeholders in the FAA’s heightened security efforts.
However, we are being made political scapegoats by the FAA’s knee jerk reaction to this horrific event on September 11th: ‘to make people feel better and to retain confidence in the system.’ In the last few days, since the terrorist attack on our country, we have not been allowed to check baggage curbside as we have done for years. Ticket agents now exclusively perform the baggage check in process.
The following Wall Street Journal quotation dated December 20, 1995, reveals the skewed frame of reference of "some security experts" that question our collective integrity. This unprecedented article appeared on the front and center of the Wall Street Journal December 20, 1995, and in the weeks to follow, the San Francisco local newspapers, and even The National Enquirer printed it almost verbatim.
"Skycaps also have become the first line of defense against terrorists at most U.S. airports - a fact some security experts find frightening. Federal authorities now require skycaps to check passengers’ picture IDs, ask questions about luggage and even decipher arcane coding to check whether travelers paid cash for tickets, which is a warning sign. Some security experts question whether skycaps can be trusted to grill a customer who is holding forth a $20 tip."
Throughout the history of the airline industry, skycaps have struggled against this undercurrent of impropriety, and of course, that is perpetuated by the fact that we accept tips. That article was tainted with the journalist’s intoxicating obsession with skycaps’ tip income. The Wall Street Journal’s stereotypical blanket statement about skycaps is no more truthful than it otherwise would be if one were to make a similar statement about ticket agent’s flaws. Just because a few airline ticket agents have been implicated in the theft of ticket refunds and other forms of ticketing fraud, would not warrant the sweeping indictment the media had applied to skycaps.
Here in San Francisco, United Airlines customer service department has recently had a 60% turnover rate. How secure is that? Conversely, the turnover rate for skycaps is
negligible. While the media analyzes the events accountable for the acts of war against our country, why are there no questions and analysis regarding the skycap issue? The radio, television and print media sources discuss the plight of America’s skycaps in a tone of matter-of-factness, almost as though they were reporting the score of an athletic event, with little empathy for those affected. We are the only occupation in America to incur the FAA’s wrath, and thus encountering such harsh consequences. If it has been deemed by the FAA that checking bags at curbside is compromising the safety of American passengers, why can we not check bags inside?
From what I have read so far, nothing can be linked to skycap check-in activities. What happened September 11th can be attributed to the following: intelligence failures; insecure cockpit doors; lapses in airport security screening; and breeches of secured airport tarmacs by unauthorized people. The people who hold these positions are still working and their classifications are not being casually eliminated.
As an attempt to humanize our classification, I will familiarize you with who we are. Many of us are parents and grandparents, husbands and wives. Among the Skycaps, some have undergraduate and graduate degrees in business, law, and economics and sociology. And there are some skycaps that have taken courses in mechanics, computers and electronics. One of us, here in San Francisco, is a World War II veteran. Thus, the Department of Transportation’s policy of prohibiting skycaps from performing this task is preposterous and harmful to innocent people, especially to the extent that it emerges from the statement of stereotyped views of skycaps in the Wall Street Journal article as being intellectually and ethically challenged.
We do not have powerful union representation or spokespersons to articulate what we would like to prevent. This is an elimination of our jobs. Mr. President, we want to work productively. We invite the opportunity to obtain additional training to perform our jobs more proficiently, whatever it takes to comply with the heightened security measures. We assure you that we will strive to complement this nation’s airline security standards. We are compelled to state our case to you as our country’s leader. We can only hope for your wise and compassionate consideration enabling us to continue safely working in the airline industry.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read our plea.
Sincerely,
Larry T. Holt
PSM skycaps at United Airlines in San Francisco, CA
cc: Honorable Norm Mineta, Department of Transportation, Honorable John Mica, chairman of the House of Representatives’ aviation subcommittee, Mr. John Martin, Director of Airports - SFO Airports Commission SFIA.
This is in response to the Ten Most Overpaid Jobs in the US (Skycaps), By Chris Pummer, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 8:19 PM ET Nov. 6, 2003
URL: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1023343/posts
Much of what is assumed about tip income is myth. And since "myth is a metaphor for what people want to believe", it’s a challenge to attempt to enlighten otherwise. Further, the mythology behind this speculation about Skycaps’ tip income emanates from scarcity psychology: The belief that more for someone else, means less for another. If that someone else, happens to be of color, this adds another dimension to this issue, because race matters.
It is absurd to assert this assumption unless one can establish what is representative of typical tip income over a given period of time. If one applies the slightest effort in critical thinking to this issue, they are likely to gather that these assumptions create more questions than they provide conclusions.
A substantial number Skycaps working employed at major US airports are working economically undesirable shifts (the night shift, howling at the moon), and economically undesirable positions (Maytag repairman). We should not be stereotyped into a group of tipped personnel, all having lucrative positions, as your article implies.
Additionally, to arrive at your $300/day figure, you used the following: $2 tip from 18 travelers an hour on average. Many tip more than that.
You completely overlook the fact that many people do not tip us anything. Further, many passengers tip $1/bag (a standard established in the 80s), and some tip change.
This information would tend to dilute your $300/a day conclusion, but that would not serve your agenda.
This is as ludicrous as any other type of stereotyping one can imagine.
Last Update: 8:19 PM ET Nov. 6, 2003
URL: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1023343/posts
Much of what is assumed about tip income is myth. And since "myth is a metaphor for what people want to believe", it’s a challenge to attempt to enlighten otherwise. Further, the mythology behind this speculation about Skycaps’ tip income emanates from scarcity psychology: The belief that more for someone else, means less for another. If that someone else, happens to be of color, this adds another dimension to this issue, because race matters.
It is absurd to assert this assumption unless one can establish what is representative of typical tip income over a given period of time. If one applies the slightest effort in critical thinking to this issue, they are likely to gather that these assumptions create more questions than they provide conclusions.
A substantial number Skycaps working employed at major US airports are working economically undesirable shifts (the night shift, howling at the moon), and economically undesirable positions (Maytag repairman). We should not be stereotyped into a group of tipped personnel, all having lucrative positions, as your article implies.
Additionally, to arrive at your $300/day figure, you used the following: $2 tip from 18 travelers an hour on average. Many tip more than that.
You completely overlook the fact that many people do not tip us anything. Further, many passengers tip $1/bag (a standard established in the 80s), and some tip change.
This information would tend to dilute your $300/a day conclusion, but that would not serve your agenda.
This is as ludicrous as any other type of stereotyping one can imagine.
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2000/09/208_co...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network