Unreal!!

Par for the course, michele. This is the part the bosses don't want the "little rubes" to see.

Reminds me of Thomas Nast, the man who rendered the enduring elephant and donkey symbols while giving Santa Claus his belly, and then giving New York's Boss Tweed a pert tweeking that destroyed his money grubbing machine.

In the meantime, Obama and his grubby co-horts are raking in the cold hard cash while the little people are dazzled by the endless fantasy stories spun just for their benefit.

Troubling in many ways. Many, many ways.

Damn!  But, thanks for sharing that video, makes what Bill Clinton just said about our current govenment very real and personal.

There's always multiple sides to the story.  Why don't you all wait until more information sufaces before coming to such conclusions?  The video shows nothing from before the altercation, nor does the article speak about what the reporter or crew were doing prior to the arrest.

Great idea, my eyes might be lyin to me, from the video and the stories I've read on the 'net, one police officer kept pushing the reporter backwards into the street, and then another cop with his arm around the suspects neck, with absolutly no resistance to the authorities at all from the reporter.

www.voices.washingtonpost.com/the_trail/2008/08/2 7/abc_new_producer_arrested.html

Blocking a sidewalk? ABC News can't cover those participating in this convention? Yes, I think that's frightening. Public property, FSG. There was clearly not enhanced security as evidenced by the laymen driving on the street that this cop shoved the producer into. (Bad grammar, sorry)

If only the cops would do the same for reporters stalking Britney/Lindsay/Paris and our young girls wouldn't be such idiots.

Just wait... something doesn't add up.

It's entirely possible that you are correct ... if it were TMZ et al it would be a no brainer. ABC still commands some respect, right? And I just realized that my link doesn't work.

We'll wait for the rest of the story ... 

I've been doing google searches, and the only credible agency reporting this is, you guessed it, ABC.

The video is on TMZ's site too.

Either way, one thing that really doesn't make sense to me is the cop with the cigar, not to mention pushing a guy into oncoming traffic.  Either this is a hoax, or we're missing some of the backstory.

Different uniforms on some of the jerks, some have department patches and some don't. The cigar is definitely  unprofessional and something about the hat on one officer that doesn't look right. Some could be private security and called the P.D. to remove the reporter for either a lame reason or hopefully a legal one.  If  a lame one heads should roll.

Several of those cops looked liked they weren't missing any meals.

Did you hear them telling the cameraman to turn the camera off? They wish they had that kind of power. If this story turns out to be legitimate, those cops' full names and photos need to be on every TV newscast in the country. Let's see what tune they sing then.

I like this observation:

Once upon a time there were people whose job entailed gathering information by doing deep background research, 'working' sources, and digging - always digging - to find facts to both educate and inform, and sell newspapers. We called them 'reporters'.

Here's some more of the story that ABC is unwilling to report, direct from the Denver Post:

On Tuesday, Ross (I think they meant Eslocker) and his crew were asked to leave Hotel Teatro when they tried to photograph a private function. On Monday, they shot pictures of a party at the Denver Art Museum through the glass.

ABC has video shot at the scene of the arrest, showing a hotel security guard, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County Sheriff's Office, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk.

Gary Ross, spokesman for the police joint incident command center said Eslocker — had been told starting at 9 a.m. that he had to move and not block the sidewalk.

"Eslocker was advised numerous times by police to stop blocking the sidewalk prior to his arrest," Ross said.

"Police were telling him to please move," he added.

ABC News said they were told by police that the complaint against Eslocker actually came from the Brown Palace Hotel management.

So the free press was forcibly removed from a sidewalk? In an attempt to photograph and get a story at a Presidential Convention? Even more frightening. Can I call the BPD now to get those psychopaths off the corner of Stockdale and California?

Why don't we guess what happened and see who does the best .  I think some of them were off duty cops working for Democratic party to keep reporters away while doing their nefarious deeds and others were to help John Edwards and his HO sneak out the backdoor.

Great catch, FSG!

I guess we should consider the source.  In this case, it's ABC's journavangelists.

It's always so shocking, though, when white men in ties get arrested, isn't it?  ; P

Police say he wasn't arrested until three hours after the first warning.

http://www.thedenverchannel...

Here's a more telling statement:

ABC said in a statement that Asa Eslocker and a camera crew were "attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting."

"We're getting under their skin, I think," said Brian Ross, ABC News correspondent whose "Money Trail" reports are running every night this week and next from both nominating conventions.

Fat cats hate Brian Ross.

If you are on a public sidewalk with a camera, I don't give a flying rat's ass how many hours passed since the first warning.

First, what in the f*#@ does the city of Denver expect when they host a huge convention? That there wouldn't be tons of reporters looking for stories all over town? I find this just another brutal demonstration of class warfare when an "upscale" hideaway can call in the cops to remove those bothersome little people and snooping reporters. I hope ABC sues the daylights out of the hotel and the city. 

 So the free press was forcibly removed from a sidewalk? In an attempt to photograph and get a story at a Presidential Convention? Even more frightening.

They were blocking the entrance to the Hotel for a number of hours.  If the story as told by the Police hold up, they did everything they could to get these guys to move before using force.  Also, the Producer in question seems to be acting a bit pompous.

What adampayne said.

It's always interesting for me to read others' comments that seem so contrary to what I believe and to then see commonalities when it's least expected. 

There's supposedly 15,000 people from the news media at the convention, to the 4,000 actual Democratic Party members in audience.

Florida, are you suggesting that we regulate the "news media" as well?

Hey, I'm no fan of fat cats making secret deals, but what they're doing isn't against the law, and if they want to make deals in private, that's their right.  It's actually a law--right to privacy.  There are also laws against loitering and being a public nuisance--hey, I didn't write these laws.  So if a hooker can be removed from the front of a business for loitering and creating a public nuisance, then a bunch of guys with TV cameras can ALSO be removed under the same law.  Acting like a crybaby diva about it is the only thing that seperates this producer from your average hooker.

Adam is right on.

 Florida, are you suggesting that we regulate the "news media" as well?

I'm suggesting that 15,000 people who happen to be of the news media have participated in the DNC and it's festivities without any problems.  While we are a country of supposed free speech and freedom of the press, that does not mean that they have the right to be obstructive to businesses.  

I still don't know the whole story, so to automatically assume that this Producer and his crew were not breaking any laws or ordinances would be foolish.  Could it be possible that the crew were violating fire code by continuously standing at the main entrance of an obviously crowded hotel?  Could it be possible that Denver might have a specific ordinance regarding how long someone can stand outside of a business without being a customer of said business?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'd rather hold my tongue and wait for a more definitive story to be reported before I automatically believe what's posted on the internet.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they didn't take him to their holding pen for protesters. 

Quality Of Life Ordinances

Denver’s loitering law has been declared unconstitutional by the courts. It exists
on the books but cannot be used. Instead, Denver has enacted two new
loitering laws.

Section 38-86 makes it unlawful to obstruct a highway, street, sidewalk, railway,
waterway, building entrance, elevator, aisle, stairway or hallway to which the
public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles,
or conveyances.

It is also unlawful to disobey a reasonable request or order to move issued by an
individual the person knows is a peace officer, a firefighter or a person with
authority to control the use of the premises.

Section 38-87 makes it unlawful for any person to significantly obstruct or
interfere with a meeting, procession, parade or gathering by physical action,
verbal utterance, or other means.

http://www.austin-chamber.o...

Sounds like someone picked the perfect city to hold a convention. One where it is illegal to protest a meeting by "verbal utterance".  Sounds to me like the courts might need to look at Sec. 38-87.  Slight exaggeration but it doesn't feel quite right.

anglo - re-read the ordinance.. and pay special attention to the words "significantly obstruct."

I did,  that is why I said it was a slight exaggeration.  Still doesn't feel right.  The media has always been given more leeway than others in similar situations and usually rightfully so.

Personally, I think the Denver ordinance is a step in the right direction.  There do need to be some basic guidelines (much like the new laws regarding paparazzi).

Expect much more of this is King Obama is coronated...

I have trouble seeing how a reporter, cameraman and soundman "significantly obstruct" a sidewalk or door. Three people are rather easy to walk around. It's not like they had a news van parked in the middle of the sidewalk. I am reminded of how our resident paranoid spook said the Denver PD might try to make mountains out of molehills during the DNC. Of course he was talking about undercover cops inciting riots in protesters, but taking an anti-loiter law as a reason to harrass media is another form of this sort of attitude.

Obama and the Dems don't want the little people to know that they make deals with lobbyists and fat cat donors.  They don't want you to know that BO is friends with a terrorist.  The less you know, the better they like it.  You thought your rights were squashed under Bush?? Just wait till BO gets annointed...

When I read the headline my first impression was this was probably a case where the media was just being annoying, like a bunch of paparazzi haunting some celebrity. It turns out that was right, but it wasn't the whole story.

Then when I saw the video I though, gee, this sure doesn't look like a situation where some big porker cops could appropriately step in and choke-hold a guy and twist his arm.  The cop with the cigar didn't help the Denver police department image wise.

Then when I saw FSG's followup I thought, Oh!. I see. This guy from ABC has been asked to stop blocking the entrance several times and he he's arrogant a**hole like a lot of the media is, and few cops who had the right level of arrogance themselves were just the right guys to move an arrogant a**hole who didn't have the word "move" in his vocabulary. The hotel owns the sidewalk but the city, like everywhere, owns the right of way. So, the hotel's being nice by askin the creeps to move wasn't sufficiently forceful enough to kept these creeps for snapping picture though the windows and annoying guests as the came and went.

This really made Princess Diana's death come to mind. We saw over and over the video and pictures that were taken by paparazzi outside that hotel she was in just before she and Dody Faud made a run for it get away from them then ended up crashing and dying.  I think the cops were a bit rough in this case in Denver but that, overall, this was a good call.  Just because the media wants to make people into public fodder for their newscast doesn't mean that the hotel or their guests have to submit to be shadowed, haunted, and have their every move documented on film.  It's a pretty sick occupation to follow people around and invade their privacy and then bitch on the public airwaves about their freedom of the press when all the hell they're doing is making a buck for their television station. The Denver cops did the right thing but they didn't have to be such bullies.

Good followup, FSG.

BS, they sometimes have to  wait hours for the crooks to show.  I don't like the paparazzi anymore than you but this seemed to be a good story that the Dems. didn't want publicized.  Doesn't seem that way to you just a little bit?

When people can't tell the difference between paprazzi trailing celebrities and a journalist on a story about politicians, those who want to control what we see on the evening news have won.

Anglo1, I'm retired from sportswriting and I'm not saying that makes me an authority, but I have seen how arrogant the "big boys" in media behave. They'll shove you aside, knock you down and trample you to get a picture of a well-known person picking their nose. That's all this sounds like to me with the exception of the cops acting like thugs.  If you find some Democrat official who has made an attempt to hush this up, please let us know. The Democrats wouldn't be doing me any favor by doing something so silly. I'd be humliated because I'm a Democrat. I'm for openness. But I'm also for people having privacy and not being stalked and shadowed for a non-story.  There are 15,000 media people in Denver all fighting to get the scoop on ONE thing that the competition doesn't have and this seems to be the best ABC can do - make themselves the news.

Whatever the circumstances, I'm suspicious that anyone could "trespass" on a public sidewalk. I thought as long as reporters did not interfere with public safety or become a hinderance, they could take all the pictures they want. If fat cats wanted a private party they should have found a private place to have it, not a public building.

Lets see. It is ok for protesters to block public areas protesting Republican policies, but it is apparently against the law for 3 people to be on a sidewalk videoing fat cat donors heading for meetings with Democrats.  Yup, bring on the brown shirts to protect the annointed one.  We aren't using our civil liberties anyway.

First of all, I don't think this is just Dem problem as the Republicans also have lobbiest and they'll have their share soon.  The question is;  is this an isolated incident or are there more of these?  My guess is that this sort of activity (media hanging around outside of hotels of every party) is just a normal scenery this week in Denver.  However, there must have been a big fat cat in that restaurant for media giant (ABC) to be staking out.  And therefore, the big fat cat in the restaurant wanted the media out at any cost.  Maybe it was Mr. Kennedy and was looking for the cop to push the reporter into a river, I mean the street.  My bad...

I think it went down something like this:

In keeping with the recent journalistic trend of creating the news instead of reporting it, ABC producer Asa Eslocker, being unable to complete his investigative report on DNC donors due to pesky Denver ordinance laws about loitering and creating a public nuisance, chooses instead to become the star of his own reality show by creating the impression that the freedom of press is being trampled on, and then filming it.

I think this guy probably dreamed up a career-making investigative story about DNC donors, thinking it would blow the lid off something (what, in this day if short attention spans, I don't know.)  Being used to all-access press passes and special treatment at the convention because he's a journalist, it was probably particularly galling and confusing to him to be denied access to a hotel, of all places (even if the hotel has the right to refuse service to anyone, etc.)  So when said hotel lodges formal complaints against him for loitering and creating a public nuisance (what?  I'm not a hooker!  I'm a journalist, for pete's sake!  didn't you see my tie?) he refuses to move.  So when the cops show up, it becomes a re-creation of something out of the early seventies, complete with "can you believe the unFAIRness of it all?" whining and probably just a little regret that the riot police didn't show up (riot police are TV GOLD!)

Yeah, the laws apply to you, too, buddy.

This is not a Democrat, or Republican problem. This is a basic freedoms issue of assembly and freedom of the press, which involves everyone. This is a local government taking measures which curtail the rights of citizens to know and to assemble on a public sidewalk. Motives don't matter in this instance, and are pure speculation. The reporter was doing his job. The police had no right to manhandle and choke him, or to push him into the street.

I am continually dismayed by actions of government to thwart information gathering, and to  prevent and disrupt the right to assemble in protest.  This disturbing trend of chaining and cordoning off people who disagree, or shooting into crowds with bullets and tear gas should be put to stop immediately. We have  an Administration currently who is terrified of the American citizen. The President and Vice-President refuse to meet or speak in real public places. They will only appear at scripted and vetted ones where cronies-only are allowed inside. What do we expect from our government when fear is their over riding principle?

We have a right to assemble and voice our disagreements in public. Our country is not an autocracy, and the people have a right to information on matters that concern the public expenditures. This action was wrong, and this type of action needs to stop.

So when said hotel lodges formal complaints against him for loitering and creating a public nuisance (what?  I'm not a hooker!  I'm a journalist, for pete's sake!  didn't you see my tie?) he refuses to move. 

I see it somewhat differently.  The *HOOKERS* (paid for by the lobbyists) wouldn't have been asked to move along.   In the mid-century South damned few white people were arrested for mopery.   I doubt there are many immigration sweeps looking for illegal Canadians. 

When the laws are applied selectively to one group and not another, it's not "the laws apply to you, too." 

Hey Random, I agree the laws are used selectively.  No business would object to a stranded young woman standing in front of their business for an hour or two while waiting for her parents to come and fix her car.  Fact is, this HOTEL was annoyed and filed a complaint.  The cops were merely enforcing the law.  I'm not saying this law is right or wrong, but it IS a law.  Many laws are "subjective," meaning they are obeyed or violated, enforced or ignored depending on the circumstances.  This guy could easily have been allowed to stand wherever he wanted and the cops might have shrugged and gone on to more important calls for service.  It didn't happen in this case, and I don't know if his civil rights were violated or not (seems that if the city ordinance isn't contrary to higher laws, then probably not.)  

All I'm saying is that the law applies to EVERYONE, even journalists.  If you don't like the law, change it.  Hey, I've got about 35 laws I'd like removed from the books, but I'm gonna follow them for the time being because they're the LAW.  I'm sure the publicity from this little melee will have Denver leaders questioning their local ordinances.  That's fine.  But no one is above the law, even journalists, and I frankly this whole display is an embarrassing example of what happens when you think you're above the law. 

A more mature (and commonly used) method would have been for this guy to film the front of the hotel from across the street and explain why the hotel is prohibiting journalists from interviewing DNC donors.  It may be the hotel's fault for acting like Fort Knox, it may be the DNC donors' fault for acting like royalty, but I don't think it's the cops' fault for enforcing the law.  This dork totally missed the point (and blew his OWN story) by acting like it's the cops' fault.  He had the chance to make the fat cats look bad, and instead he acted like a drunk at Mardi Gras.

Fact is, this HOTEL was annoyed and filed a complaint. 

I suspect they were acting on a lobbyist's complaint, actually.  And the fact is that he was on a *PUBLIC SIDEWALK* and not on hotel property.  I think it *WAS* the cops' fault--I think they should've told the hotel to blow it out the south end of their alimentary canal.

The laws *DON'T* equally apply to journalists in many cases.  Journalists are quite often allowed to go places where the general public is restricted--closer to crime scenes than a gawker would be allowed, for instance.    There are very good reasons for this.  I've picketed on public sidewalks where cops were called who could do nothing so long as we a) didn't block foot traffic and b) kept moving.  TV news crews for logistical reasons can't "keep moving."  The cops were out of line and there'll be a settlement.

I've never seen any special provisions in any of the penal code or local ordinance laws for journalists outside of the public records act provision.  If you say they're there, I'll believe you.