Friday, July 3, 2009
DC Fire & EMS Chief Dennis Rubin says STATter911.com story isn't true. Chief Rubin's own PIO says otherwise.
Click here and then scroll down for the latest fire and EMS news from STATter911.com
DC Fire & EMS Department Chief Dennis Rubin told a radio interviewer on Thursday that a story by Dave Statter "simply isn't true". A few hours later Chief Rubin's own PIO, Alan Etter, confirmed the information was true. So what is this all about?
It involves the Metro crash on June 22 that took the lives of nine people. It also concerns the interaction between the press and government and the flow of information to the public in the first two hours following the crash. Many may think this is trivial compared to the tragedy of that afternoon and the important work of the first responders. I won't argue with you.
Still, I think it is an important topic. One that we have discussed on STATter911.com following many different incidents, here and around the country.
I apologize ahead of time for this lengthy blog entry. But since it involves questions about the accuracy of what we report, I thought it important for you to get as much information and raw material as possible in order to make your own judgments.
Here are the facts as I know them.
You may recall we ran two items in the days following the crash asking why reporters couldn't get some basic information from public information officers at the scene of the Red Line collision. Here is the relevant part of that first entry from June 23:
Where are the PIOs?: With a large section of the city shut down, Metro's Red Line at a standstill, and loved ones desperately looking for information, the city went into an information blackout mode within the first hour of the crisis. While at least one fire department PIO provided initial information in the first minutes, sources within city government tell STATter911.com that word came from Mayor Adrian Fenty's press office that no more interviews were to be done, or information relayed to reporters until a 7:15 PM press conference by the mayor.
On June 24 we linked to other news organizations, including the Washington Post, where similar questions were being asked.
WTOP Radio investigative reporter Mark Segraves recalled my postings. In the station's Ask the Chief program on Thursday morning Segraves asked Chief Rubin and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier why this occurred.
Chief Rubin replied in part, "We had our public information officers providing as much information from the police department and the fire department as was possible". He later said, "I don't think that information ever shut down. At least I am going to say that."
Mark Segraves brought up my name as one source of the report that there was a news blackout. Segraves said he heard similar stories from other reporters covering the incident. In reply, here is what Chief Rubin said about me:
"But it was no structured design (cutting off information). I know Mr. Statter had described that fact and that just simply isn't true. The other side of it is, though, if we were to shoot from the hip, I think instead of being here today saying why did it take a bit to learn the number of folks, to have some notion as to what occurred here. Instead of that, I think we would be under the gun, why did you give us such inaccurate information?"
"I know there were some comments made about the number of cell telephone calls that were made. I never received a one from Mr. Statter and I know he is the person that's complaining the most. But I would have to give us a very high mark, that of course is, the mayor's management consequence team that worked at that event providing accurate timely and effective information".
You can watch the entire interaction on this topic between Mark Segraves, Chief Rubin and Chief Lanier in the video at the top of this entry.
The crux of my brief story on June 23 was that word came from Mayor Adrian Fenty's office ordering no further interviews be given prior to the mayor's press conference.
About five hours after WTOP's interview on Thursday I contacted Alan Etter, who is leaving his job as the DC Fire & EMS Department PIO on July 10. I asked Etter if my reporting on this issue, as his boss Chief Rubin indicates, is wrong.
Etter confirmed, on the record, that it was accurate. Etter said at about 6:10 PM, 70-minutes after the crash was reported, he received a page from Mayor Adrian Fenty's press office ordering that he give no further interviews about the collision. According to Etter, the page indicated Mayor Fenty would be speaking at 7:15 PM.
Despite that order, Etter said in some cases, he attempted to keep the information going on background and not for attribution.
In a brief interview after the radio show with 9NEWS NOW photographer Keith Williams (above), Chief Rubin added some other comments. In that interview, Chief Rubin sounded a similar theme, saying, "There were no restrictions or controls placed on the fire and EMS department by anyone".
In both interviews Chief Rubin made comments about me not contacting him. Hours before running the first item on June 23 I sent an email/page to the chief for comment. Before the entry was posted I also had a number of conversations with Etter and Deputy Chief Kenneth Crosswhite.
Those conversations about the Metro incident have continued with Etter and Crosswhite on almost a daily basis since the crash occurred. On a number of occasions I also talked with Billy Hayes, who currently supervises the public information office. (Note: That position is being taken over by Pete Piringer next week, as Hayes moves to another job within the department.)
At no time during our many conversations over the last 11 days did these three people, who deal with the press for the DC Fire & EMS Department, give any indication what I reported was inaccurate.
Now, armed with the specific information from Alan Etter, I see one error. My timing was slightly off. Etter says the order from the mayor's press office came, not within the first hour, but just after the first hour.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you I left a message on Chief Rubin's phone Thursday afternoon expressing my disappointment that the first I heard about claims that my reporting wasn't truthful was during the live radio interview. As someone who covers the DC Fire & EMS Department on a daily basis, I was curious why no one contacted me or my bosses about this issue. So far I have not heard back from the chief.
There was another part of my reporting on the topic of dealing with the news media immediately after the crash that is not in question. In fact, Police Chief Cathy Lanier provided official confirmation during an interview yesterday. Lanier admits that she gave the order to have the press removed from the New Hampshire Avenue bridge near the crash site primarily because the chief did not want photographers taking pictures of bodies. This happened about 75-minutes into the incident. Chief Lanier stands by her decision.
The police chief also gave indication reporters and photographers on the bridge were in the way of a potential landing site for helicopters and the staging of 40 ambulances. Checking with the 9NEWS NOW crew on the scene at the time, they tell me the helicopters and ambulances did not come to that location. Below is the interview with Chief Lanier.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Dave, though this is trivial in nature, hopefully you get a sense of this clowns arrogance when it comes to being questioned about anything. When he's asked about situations related to him, he is less than truthful and if continually asked he will get frustrated. Just look at June 22, 2009 hearing with Councilmember Mendelson as well as last nights broadcast on Fox 5.
This demeanor of a so called notable chief in the fire service, is in fact one that will say or do just about anything to protect one person and thats himself. When will folks learn that Chief Rubin is a god of the Fire Service and his 4 subordinate Assistant Chiefs are the epitomy of what an effective well balnced, honest, fair and equitable fire department they run.
This demeanor of a so called notable chief in the fire service, is in fact one that will say or do just about anything to protect one person and thats himself. When will folks learn that Chief Rubin is a god of the Fire Service and his 4 subordinate Assistant Chiefs are the epitomy of what an effective well balnced, honest, fair and equitable fire department they run.
# posted by 
: July 3, 2009 9:04 AM
: July 3, 2009 9:04 AM
I believe Alan Etter over Chief Rubin any day of the week! I understand that Alan is going to UDC as communications director. That is great for UDC, but he will be missed at Fire/EMS.
# posted by : July 3, 2009 11:47 AM
: July 3, 2009 11:47 AM
The only reason the PIO's don't report the news is that Rubin wants his pretty mug on the news.
# posted by : July 3, 2009 11:53 AM
: July 3, 2009 11:53 AM
What part of "POTENTIAL landing site" did you need explainied to you? Just because it was not used doesn't meant that it wasw not being considered or was in the operations plan as a backup.
The "press" and "media' also think that pnce they arrive on the scene of an incident that they should have complete run of the place and that they are "gods" in their own right. They are NOT in charge and NOT emergency personnel! They are glorified spectators and subject to the SAME rules as the general public!
As for the photographing of body removal, I must agree with the police chief. And a GOOD example of this fascination with gore is the FACT that the "media" made it a point to photograph the removal of the body from the Metro suicide that took place right after the wreck on the Red Line. It contributed NOTHING to the story (everyone KNEW from the naration that a person was struck by the train and that it was later determined to be a suicide) but I'm sure that "ratings points" were properly awarded for this "coverage. I wonder how the victim's family feels? I wonder if the "media" even bothered considering this or even contacted the family? (I'll answer that with a NO as this was shown in REAL TIME and there would have been NO TIME to make such notifications or "check facts").
I saw NO lapse in "coverage" when viewing the Metro train wreck. There was a wreck, there were fatalities, there were train cars piled on top of each other, there were rescues being effected and filmed, there was an investigation being carried out. There were regular and periodic press releases by the proper authorities with all of the information that was relevant at the moment.
There was great cooperation between the various agencies on the scene (PD, FD, FBI, NTSB, Metro, and DC Government). The ICS seemed to be working well and it appeared that the command staff was not only working on their "Plan A" but also had a "Plan B" ready to go should there be a need for changes or adjustments.
According to law in most jusrisdictions, the emergency services have LEGAL POSSESSION of a scene forthe duration of the ememrgency incident. And as such when they give an order it carries the force of law and that includes the "media" along with all others.
And YOU should know this, Statter, as YOU always brag about your "experience" in emergency services at every opportunity. But apparently you must not have paid much attention during your "training" or during your "vast and varied" experience or you would have KNOW this! Or...maybe...this is WHY you are no longer a part of those very emergency services? Because you don't think the rules apply to YOU and your ilk? to be fair and objectve, you are not the only one who acts this way and cries about "freedom of information", "the public's right to know", etc. Most "journalists" today think they are some privileged few who have the right to roam freely throughout a crowded, dangerous, confused area "collecting facts" to use to "tell a story". Today's technology is such that there is NO need to be in anybody's face or in their way to "collect information". Telephoto lenses, helicopter shots, and the always famous "interview with the spectator who hasn't a clue" should serve nicely to give the "journalist" all the props they need to make their "story" (which most of the time bears NO semblance to what REALLY is happening). Lenses and cameras are so advanced that the can take hi-res pictures from extraordinary distances. 99% of "stories" center around not the actual event but the screaming, crying spectator, relative, homeless bum or fill-in-the-blank who provides the appropriate melodrama. And the all-important "blood-and-guts" shots.
Looks like this round actually goes to the officials this time.
The "press" and "media' also think that pnce they arrive on the scene of an incident that they should have complete run of the place and that they are "gods" in their own right. They are NOT in charge and NOT emergency personnel! They are glorified spectators and subject to the SAME rules as the general public!
As for the photographing of body removal, I must agree with the police chief. And a GOOD example of this fascination with gore is the FACT that the "media" made it a point to photograph the removal of the body from the Metro suicide that took place right after the wreck on the Red Line. It contributed NOTHING to the story (everyone KNEW from the naration that a person was struck by the train and that it was later determined to be a suicide) but I'm sure that "ratings points" were properly awarded for this "coverage. I wonder how the victim's family feels? I wonder if the "media" even bothered considering this or even contacted the family? (I'll answer that with a NO as this was shown in REAL TIME and there would have been NO TIME to make such notifications or "check facts").
I saw NO lapse in "coverage" when viewing the Metro train wreck. There was a wreck, there were fatalities, there were train cars piled on top of each other, there were rescues being effected and filmed, there was an investigation being carried out. There were regular and periodic press releases by the proper authorities with all of the information that was relevant at the moment.
There was great cooperation between the various agencies on the scene (PD, FD, FBI, NTSB, Metro, and DC Government). The ICS seemed to be working well and it appeared that the command staff was not only working on their "Plan A" but also had a "Plan B" ready to go should there be a need for changes or adjustments.
According to law in most jusrisdictions, the emergency services have LEGAL POSSESSION of a scene forthe duration of the ememrgency incident. And as such when they give an order it carries the force of law and that includes the "media" along with all others.
And YOU should know this, Statter, as YOU always brag about your "experience" in emergency services at every opportunity. But apparently you must not have paid much attention during your "training" or during your "vast and varied" experience or you would have KNOW this! Or...maybe...this is WHY you are no longer a part of those very emergency services? Because you don't think the rules apply to YOU and your ilk? to be fair and objectve, you are not the only one who acts this way and cries about "freedom of information", "the public's right to know", etc. Most "journalists" today think they are some privileged few who have the right to roam freely throughout a crowded, dangerous, confused area "collecting facts" to use to "tell a story". Today's technology is such that there is NO need to be in anybody's face or in their way to "collect information". Telephoto lenses, helicopter shots, and the always famous "interview with the spectator who hasn't a clue" should serve nicely to give the "journalist" all the props they need to make their "story" (which most of the time bears NO semblance to what REALLY is happening). Lenses and cameras are so advanced that the can take hi-res pictures from extraordinary distances. 99% of "stories" center around not the actual event but the screaming, crying spectator, relative, homeless bum or fill-in-the-blank who provides the appropriate melodrama. And the all-important "blood-and-guts" shots.
Looks like this round actually goes to the officials this time.
# posted by : July 3, 2009 3:55 PM
: July 3, 2009 3:55 PM
My "vast" experience, if there is any, is in covering the fire service. About 6 times more than my time actually in fire and EMS. If I portrayed it any other way please let me know.
When Chief Lanier mentioned the helicopter landing site during our interview I understood that possibility completely and questioned her no further about it. My interest is in this idea that the police chief or police officers or firefighters should be deciding what viewers at home see. I respect Chief Lanier for being honest and saying that keeping us from shooting bodies was her primary reason for moving the media. It is exactly what I reported in the first place.
Other police officers made the same decision when they removed photographers from a building rooftop and tried to remove them from the porch of someone's private home (the reporter/photographer refused). At least one other official stood in front of a photographer's lens to keep them from seeing what was in public view. That is on the video with Chief Lanier.
If that is the type of country you want to live in so be it. May I suggest Iran?
The last I looked we live in a country where the government does not decide what we can and can't shoot in a public space. I think that principle is covered under some important old documents that the police officers are sworn to protect and uphold.
But if you want to give that power to the police, please let us know what the rules are. Or do you just want them to make the decision based on whatever they decide on any given moment?
Not having any reason to doubt Chief Lanier, but how do you know it is just the bodies they don't want us to see?
My reason for skepticism on the helicopter landing there is that the police officers would not let Channel 9 retrieve its microwave transmission truck with its 65 foot mast sitting straight up in the air. Usually the helicopter landing zones are kept at a slightly greater distance from those trucks or in rare cases we have been asked not to fully extend the masts.
By the way on what channel did you see those body shots of the Metro suicide?
On the information flow, my story was and continues to be that the PIO was ordered not to give interviews for more than an hour until the mayor's press conference. Chief Rubin indicates that didn't happen. Alan Etter says it did.
Many news organizations couldn't even get the basic, confirmed information from officials at a time when the public and loved ones of those on the train needed to know what was going on. They were told to wait for the mayor at 7:15. Combine that with moving the press back, blocking access from rooftops and porches, I would say there was a bit of a news blackout at a crucial decision making time for a lot of people.
Mayor Fenty and his administration have the perfect right to do it in this manner and we have the perfect right to report on it when they do. I would also think there is a story in why a department pays for three PIOs and doesn't let one of them talk during a crisis situation. Sounds like government waste to me.
If you would prefer a system where the government decides what we shoot, why not take it a step further and have them decide what we report. Better yet, get rid of the press completely and wait for the government to tell you what you need to know and when you need to know it. How does that sound?
That said, I continue to understand the sensitivity and other concerns about showing bodies and faces, but I don't think the answer is more government control. I would rather see that handled by the public letting a news organization know it doesn't meet community standards.
I do appreciate the input and thank you for reading.
Statter
When Chief Lanier mentioned the helicopter landing site during our interview I understood that possibility completely and questioned her no further about it. My interest is in this idea that the police chief or police officers or firefighters should be deciding what viewers at home see. I respect Chief Lanier for being honest and saying that keeping us from shooting bodies was her primary reason for moving the media. It is exactly what I reported in the first place.
Other police officers made the same decision when they removed photographers from a building rooftop and tried to remove them from the porch of someone's private home (the reporter/photographer refused). At least one other official stood in front of a photographer's lens to keep them from seeing what was in public view. That is on the video with Chief Lanier.
If that is the type of country you want to live in so be it. May I suggest Iran?
The last I looked we live in a country where the government does not decide what we can and can't shoot in a public space. I think that principle is covered under some important old documents that the police officers are sworn to protect and uphold.
But if you want to give that power to the police, please let us know what the rules are. Or do you just want them to make the decision based on whatever they decide on any given moment?
Not having any reason to doubt Chief Lanier, but how do you know it is just the bodies they don't want us to see?
My reason for skepticism on the helicopter landing there is that the police officers would not let Channel 9 retrieve its microwave transmission truck with its 65 foot mast sitting straight up in the air. Usually the helicopter landing zones are kept at a slightly greater distance from those trucks or in rare cases we have been asked not to fully extend the masts.
By the way on what channel did you see those body shots of the Metro suicide?
On the information flow, my story was and continues to be that the PIO was ordered not to give interviews for more than an hour until the mayor's press conference. Chief Rubin indicates that didn't happen. Alan Etter says it did.
Many news organizations couldn't even get the basic, confirmed information from officials at a time when the public and loved ones of those on the train needed to know what was going on. They were told to wait for the mayor at 7:15. Combine that with moving the press back, blocking access from rooftops and porches, I would say there was a bit of a news blackout at a crucial decision making time for a lot of people.
Mayor Fenty and his administration have the perfect right to do it in this manner and we have the perfect right to report on it when they do. I would also think there is a story in why a department pays for three PIOs and doesn't let one of them talk during a crisis situation. Sounds like government waste to me.
If you would prefer a system where the government decides what we shoot, why not take it a step further and have them decide what we report. Better yet, get rid of the press completely and wait for the government to tell you what you need to know and when you need to know it. How does that sound?
That said, I continue to understand the sensitivity and other concerns about showing bodies and faces, but I don't think the answer is more government control. I would rather see that handled by the public letting a news organization know it doesn't meet community standards.
I do appreciate the input and thank you for reading.
Statter
Yeah Dave, I'm gonna have to agree with the guy above. Nothing against you, we all dig the fact you lend creedence to our careers. We feel our society is run by media. And it's no secret that media types are pushing the envelope further and further to grab the big story "exclusive". Just think if that was your loved one, would you want a cameraman (the one seeing nothing but dollarsigns) videoing the extrication?. Its a matter of dignity and leaving it to the viewers imagination.
Personally, I think Rubin is a snake in the grass. Look at his career, typical snake-oil salesman, theres quite a few of them out there. Don't trust him...but ya gotta deal with him.
Personally, I think Rubin is a snake in the grass. Look at his career, typical snake-oil salesman, theres quite a few of them out there. Don't trust him...but ya gotta deal with him.
First of all, I appreciate the comments and as I have said before, for more reasons than seeing their faces on TV, I don't want it to be my loved ones. I also don't want my government as editor-in-chief.
So now we shouldn't video extrications? Why don't we ban all cameras at fires? Including the ones carried by firefighters. You never know when a citizen's face might pop into view.
Give me the rules on how this is to be done. The press isn't allowed in until the event is over? We have to have our video screened in advance by the fire chief or the police chief?
Tell me what I as a reporter shouldn't be allowed in your world. I am interested in your opinion. Give me rules and procedures that don't conflict with our open society wiand its free press.
Everytime I ask this for this stuff it gets awfully quiet out there.
Also, no one responds when I tell them to look at this http://tinyurl.com/lke79n. Read what I wrote and look at the comments.
In the comments you will see many who tell me the media sanitizes too much for the public.
Under your rules should those award winning iconic photos that show firefighters in action not have been presented to the public because someone's face was in it.
Believe me I have as many problems with the news media and news coverage as you do. There is a lot I don't like. But I also like living in an open and free society. It isn't always pretty.
I am interested in your thoughts, but come to me with some answers to these questions.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
Dave
So now we shouldn't video extrications? Why don't we ban all cameras at fires? Including the ones carried by firefighters. You never know when a citizen's face might pop into view.
Give me the rules on how this is to be done. The press isn't allowed in until the event is over? We have to have our video screened in advance by the fire chief or the police chief?
Tell me what I as a reporter shouldn't be allowed in your world. I am interested in your opinion. Give me rules and procedures that don't conflict with our open society wiand its free press.
Everytime I ask this for this stuff it gets awfully quiet out there.
Also, no one responds when I tell them to look at this http://tinyurl.com/lke79n. Read what I wrote and look at the comments.
In the comments you will see many who tell me the media sanitizes too much for the public.
Under your rules should those award winning iconic photos that show firefighters in action not have been presented to the public because someone's face was in it.
Believe me I have as many problems with the news media and news coverage as you do. There is a lot I don't like. But I also like living in an open and free society. It isn't always pretty.
I am interested in your thoughts, but come to me with some answers to these questions.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
Dave
Dave,
I agree to with the officials. The way I view it. You have a incident that will be brodcasted around the world. If the Mayor's Office, who really are the boss over MPD, DCFD, etc. say "we" will handle all press announces makes absolute sense. Like any airliner crash or large scale incident, you most always see the Mayor or Governor making the briefings, then pass to the Chiefs, FBI, ATF, etc.
And to have 3 PIO's shout out what they know and might not have the same information at hand is very determental to anyone wanting information.
It's like having 3 news channels report information, all have several sources and report in their own words... Maybe fine for you because that's your job.
But again, to have the governing office for DC say, stop... we'll handle and make briefings at certain times was one of the best decisions coming out of the Wilson Building.
If Allen was told to stop speaking and didn't say why. I bet when they told Rubin to stop any media, he got the reason why... A combined press conference with all parties..
On the surface it seems that reporters couldn't get to their normal sources and that bothered them.
Well this wasn't a normal DC incident...
Take one on the chin Dave!
DC did something right..
I agree to with the officials. The way I view it. You have a incident that will be brodcasted around the world. If the Mayor's Office, who really are the boss over MPD, DCFD, etc. say "we" will handle all press announces makes absolute sense. Like any airliner crash or large scale incident, you most always see the Mayor or Governor making the briefings, then pass to the Chiefs, FBI, ATF, etc.
And to have 3 PIO's shout out what they know and might not have the same information at hand is very determental to anyone wanting information.
It's like having 3 news channels report information, all have several sources and report in their own words... Maybe fine for you because that's your job.
But again, to have the governing office for DC say, stop... we'll handle and make briefings at certain times was one of the best decisions coming out of the Wilson Building.
If Allen was told to stop speaking and didn't say why. I bet when they told Rubin to stop any media, he got the reason why... A combined press conference with all parties..
On the surface it seems that reporters couldn't get to their normal sources and that bothered them.
Well this wasn't a normal DC incident...
Take one on the chin Dave!
DC did something right..
# posted by : July 3, 2009 7:26 PM
: July 3, 2009 7:26 PM
There is nothing to take on the chin. I am not personally offended by any of it. My story was and continues to be accurate, at least according to Mr. Etter.
Under your rules the public wouldn't have any concrete facts until 2 hours and 15 minutes after the event occurred. Let's not say a word until the Mayor is here. If you think that is keeping the public informed in a moment of crisis, go for it.
The other way is this model. You pay for these PIO positions just for these moments. You put trained professionals in there who operate under standard operation procedures and talk to the public, through the news media, in the early stages and continuing before and possibly after you have your big press conference with all of the suits. They don't speculate, but instead say what is known so far. Provide factual information only.
It is what Etter and other local fire PIOs have done at many, many scenes. It is what Sgt. David Schlosser of US Park Police did at the Holocaust Memorial shooting in the early stages. I listened to him in my car saying this is what we know and this is what we don't know. Calm, precise, factual and timely.
I will stick with my model, you stick with yours. I think you hire good people and you trust them to perform under these situations and don't gag them.
But again, that's a decision for the mayor and the fire chief and not some blogger in Virginia.
Statter
Under your rules the public wouldn't have any concrete facts until 2 hours and 15 minutes after the event occurred. Let's not say a word until the Mayor is here. If you think that is keeping the public informed in a moment of crisis, go for it.
The other way is this model. You pay for these PIO positions just for these moments. You put trained professionals in there who operate under standard operation procedures and talk to the public, through the news media, in the early stages and continuing before and possibly after you have your big press conference with all of the suits. They don't speculate, but instead say what is known so far. Provide factual information only.
It is what Etter and other local fire PIOs have done at many, many scenes. It is what Sgt. David Schlosser of US Park Police did at the Holocaust Memorial shooting in the early stages. I listened to him in my car saying this is what we know and this is what we don't know. Calm, precise, factual and timely.
I will stick with my model, you stick with yours. I think you hire good people and you trust them to perform under these situations and don't gag them.
But again, that's a decision for the mayor and the fire chief and not some blogger in Virginia.
Statter
Ok they {photos} have merit. The link you posted however are a fine line difference between action shots-a one in a million rarity, and opening a tin can and for lack of a better descriptor, blood and fatalities pouring out. Dave, you know what was in those cars, It wasn't pretty.
I am certain you are implying you or a cameraman has the professional decency to edit that stuff out. But the video STILL exists.
Yeah, I'll agree with you 100% I don't want the government to be your editor either, you were treated poorly I hope it doesn't happen that way again.
One final thing, I am a professional fire officer. I have never ever agreed with,condoned,nor will I allow my guys to photo/video anything without the approval or direction of my Chief. We have a policy forbidding them. I don't agree with every policy that comes from the Bugle Factory, but that is one I happen to. Nothing good can come from them. It looks terribly unprofessional Dave a fireman smirking with a camera.
So please, when you think 'ahhhhh everyones doing it...' Believe it or not..some aren't, and I am proud of that.
I am certain you are implying you or a cameraman has the professional decency to edit that stuff out. But the video STILL exists.
Yeah, I'll agree with you 100% I don't want the government to be your editor either, you were treated poorly I hope it doesn't happen that way again.
One final thing, I am a professional fire officer. I have never ever agreed with,condoned,nor will I allow my guys to photo/video anything without the approval or direction of my Chief. We have a policy forbidding them. I don't agree with every policy that comes from the Bugle Factory, but that is one I happen to. Nothing good can come from them. It looks terribly unprofessional Dave a fireman smirking with a camera.
So please, when you think 'ahhhhh everyones doing it...' Believe it or not..some aren't, and I am proud of that.
Sammy,
Thank you for your nice response.
I am still trying to figure out who is showing allof this blood and guts that everyone is so worried about. I'd be fired if I did. Please point me to those images from the Metro crash or other recent local TV new stories.
To me, the legitimate arguments are keeping the news media and the public out of the hair of the first responders, out of the crime scene, and possibly out of unsafe areas (we do cover wars, you know).
Beyond that it really is censorship.
Let me tell you a story of how this was handled in a much different manner in an even more horrific train collision.
Photographer Greg Guise and I were were the third news crew on the scene of the Chase, MD collision that killed 16 in January 1987.
When we got there we walked around the cars, but stayed out of the way of the firefighters. Eventually an area was set up where we could easily see the firefighters in action trying to deal with the people who were trapped for hours.
When the last live person was brought out the firefighters held up a sheet to shield that person from the cameras as they were lowered from the train. While some photographers on the scene moaned about it (not Greg) I saw it as a better shot. The firefighters and medics had created a bond with this person and wanted to protect their dignity.
What is wrong with that idea? Instead of censoring and not letting us see you do your jobs, what about doing it in a way that a free society should operate. It is my right to shoot it. It is your right to cover it up.
Also, you never know when those images like the ones I pointed you to will occur. If you keep the press so far at bay the public will have no clue what it is you do.
Glad to see you are thinking about the impact of cameras. It is one of the things we will be talking about in Baltimore at Expo (It is what I should be working on right now instead of chatting with you).
Thanks again. Someone finally looked at the stuff and then responded. Yeah!!! Now we are getting somewhere.
Be safe.
Statter
Thank you for your nice response.
I am still trying to figure out who is showing allof this blood and guts that everyone is so worried about. I'd be fired if I did. Please point me to those images from the Metro crash or other recent local TV new stories.
To me, the legitimate arguments are keeping the news media and the public out of the hair of the first responders, out of the crime scene, and possibly out of unsafe areas (we do cover wars, you know).
Beyond that it really is censorship.
Let me tell you a story of how this was handled in a much different manner in an even more horrific train collision.
Photographer Greg Guise and I were were the third news crew on the scene of the Chase, MD collision that killed 16 in January 1987.
When we got there we walked around the cars, but stayed out of the way of the firefighters. Eventually an area was set up where we could easily see the firefighters in action trying to deal with the people who were trapped for hours.
When the last live person was brought out the firefighters held up a sheet to shield that person from the cameras as they were lowered from the train. While some photographers on the scene moaned about it (not Greg) I saw it as a better shot. The firefighters and medics had created a bond with this person and wanted to protect their dignity.
What is wrong with that idea? Instead of censoring and not letting us see you do your jobs, what about doing it in a way that a free society should operate. It is my right to shoot it. It is your right to cover it up.
Also, you never know when those images like the ones I pointed you to will occur. If you keep the press so far at bay the public will have no clue what it is you do.
Glad to see you are thinking about the impact of cameras. It is one of the things we will be talking about in Baltimore at Expo (It is what I should be working on right now instead of chatting with you).
Thanks again. Someone finally looked at the stuff and then responded. Yeah!!! Now we are getting somewhere.
Be safe.
Statter
Not sure why this even a big deal. So what? In the initial stages of an incident like this the information is never accurate so why even ask for it? Give it some time....they are busy getting a hold of the situation and don't have time or resources for the media. They will do it when they can, relax!!
# posted by : July 3, 2009 9:30 PM
: July 3, 2009 9:30 PM
I will give you an example why its important. If you live in the Washington area you may recall the tragic deaths of two Fairfax County police officers a few years back. They were ambushed in the rear of the Sully Police Station.
For a variety of reasons, some technological, some emotional, and some I can't fully explain, there was almost a complete lack of information from the PIOs in the police department. The press office called the TV stations and practically ordered us not to send our helicopters and then wouldn't confirm anything about the incident.
A good portion of Fairfax County was shut down. Parents couldn't get to schools, day care or other places to get to their children. A gunmen was possibly on the loose. There was no direction from county government on what to do or a real explanation as to what was going on. This went on for multiple hours.
News organizations were forced to track down the Board of Supervisors chairman to get information. Then the police department was unhappy with him because he released word that an officer had died before the cops were ready to give that information.
Yes, the priority is to deal with the wounded police officers and secure the scene. But PIOs don't do that. The public doesn't need to know if the officers are dead or alive right away. They do need to know what is going on so informed decisions can be made. Such as, do I stay in my home or do I leave. That didn't happen.
What if the Metro or the Fairfax incident were terrorism related? Is this how you would want information to flow at such a crucial moment.
Remember one of the biggest complaints about the Virginia-Tech massacre?. It was about information and some felt the school failed to properly alert the community about the first shooting.
I just think it is more important to get confirmed information in the public's hands rather than wait for all of the brass to arrive and line up.
And here is another view of this concept. In 1997 there was an anthrax scare at B'nai B'rith's headquarters at Scott Circle in DC. It shut down a good part of the city during rush hour.
I still get a chuckle at the image of my friend Mike Brooks, a former DC Police detective and volunteer firefighter, getting decontaminated in front of the TV cameras.
At some point around 7:00 reporter Mike Buchanan and I got word that tests had confirmed this was a hoax. We were certain our information was correct. Officials absolutely refused to announce it until they could get all the brass together for a press conference about 60 or 90 minutes later.
Our station made the decision, that after bringing things to a halt for so many hours that was a silly reason to hold the information. We put it on the air. Some top people in the police department were mad at us, but we thought the obligation to the public was more important than a dog and pony show (which we also covered).
There is a balance to all of this. I say again it shouldn't be about any of our egos. It should be about getting the information in the hands of the public so they can make good and timely decisions.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Statter
For a variety of reasons, some technological, some emotional, and some I can't fully explain, there was almost a complete lack of information from the PIOs in the police department. The press office called the TV stations and practically ordered us not to send our helicopters and then wouldn't confirm anything about the incident.
A good portion of Fairfax County was shut down. Parents couldn't get to schools, day care or other places to get to their children. A gunmen was possibly on the loose. There was no direction from county government on what to do or a real explanation as to what was going on. This went on for multiple hours.
News organizations were forced to track down the Board of Supervisors chairman to get information. Then the police department was unhappy with him because he released word that an officer had died before the cops were ready to give that information.
Yes, the priority is to deal with the wounded police officers and secure the scene. But PIOs don't do that. The public doesn't need to know if the officers are dead or alive right away. They do need to know what is going on so informed decisions can be made. Such as, do I stay in my home or do I leave. That didn't happen.
What if the Metro or the Fairfax incident were terrorism related? Is this how you would want information to flow at such a crucial moment.
Remember one of the biggest complaints about the Virginia-Tech massacre?. It was about information and some felt the school failed to properly alert the community about the first shooting.
I just think it is more important to get confirmed information in the public's hands rather than wait for all of the brass to arrive and line up.
And here is another view of this concept. In 1997 there was an anthrax scare at B'nai B'rith's headquarters at Scott Circle in DC. It shut down a good part of the city during rush hour.
I still get a chuckle at the image of my friend Mike Brooks, a former DC Police detective and volunteer firefighter, getting decontaminated in front of the TV cameras.
At some point around 7:00 reporter Mike Buchanan and I got word that tests had confirmed this was a hoax. We were certain our information was correct. Officials absolutely refused to announce it until they could get all the brass together for a press conference about 60 or 90 minutes later.
Our station made the decision, that after bringing things to a halt for so many hours that was a silly reason to hold the information. We put it on the air. Some top people in the police department were mad at us, but we thought the obligation to the public was more important than a dog and pony show (which we also covered).
There is a balance to all of this. I say again it shouldn't be about any of our egos. It should be about getting the information in the hands of the public so they can make good and timely decisions.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Statter
Dave,
In the end of your last post where you mention the egos of the top brass is what this is largely about. The big politicos wanted to get their face time. This is when they can sell themselves further to the community, and especially since this was being scene nationally it gave them even better exposure.
The top brass need to realize this is not about them, but about the incident and the way it affects the community.
In the end of your last post where you mention the egos of the top brass is what this is largely about. The big politicos wanted to get their face time. This is when they can sell themselves further to the community, and especially since this was being scene nationally it gave them even better exposure.
The top brass need to realize this is not about them, but about the incident and the way it affects the community.
# posted by : July 4, 2009 3:12 AM
: July 4, 2009 3:12 AM
I get it. Your beef is the fact that no one seems to want to admit that they shut off the news. If that is what they want then say it and stop playing word games. If the mayor wanted the standard press conference with all the players in the background then fine. Just be honest about it all. The police chief is playing the same games with why she moved news crews.
Everyone who thinks that politics and looking "in command" didn't play into these decisions is being a bit naive. There are no decisions made in any city or level of government that don't take that into account. That is ok just be honest about it. Mayors want to look in control and up to date with information. I truly think most press conferences are simply to make sure the players get their time on the tube.
As much grief as the DC departments get...nationwide...for everything they may or may not have screwed up over the years, I see why they want to control information for a crash that could be blamed on them.
Everyone who thinks that politics and looking "in command" didn't play into these decisions is being a bit naive. There are no decisions made in any city or level of government that don't take that into account. That is ok just be honest about it. Mayors want to look in control and up to date with information. I truly think most press conferences are simply to make sure the players get their time on the tube.
As much grief as the DC departments get...nationwide...for everything they may or may not have screwed up over the years, I see why they want to control information for a crash that could be blamed on them.
# posted by : July 4, 2009 9:38 AM
: July 4, 2009 9:38 AM
I think the problem is the lying about it. If they had good reasons for doing the "black out" thing, then so be it. But stand up and admit that you did it. Why lie about it?
# posted by : July 4, 2009 10:31 AM
: July 4, 2009 10:31 AM
I would like to respond to Statter and other Comments about Media Coverage. First of all the comment about believing Allan Etter over The Fire Chief seems like an absolute issue of personality against the Fire Chief. Yes Like others that know him Mr. Allan Etter is a good and decent man, as well as a True Professional in his role as PIO for DCFD. However the conflicting reports that have surfaced creating a blown out of control issue that could be discussed professionally between these two men. Perhaps a misconception of what was said and how the intent of the Chief's words through is memory obviously
were taken out of context. I listened to the radio show where both The Fire Chief and police Chief were on the air and questioned. This was Statter's normal way of sort of getting back when his words are challenged. Statter why didnot you just merely set up a confidential meeting between yourself The Fire Chief and Allan Etter? Then once the truth was spoken it would be ok for you post headlines on your blog. I have always respected you as a professional Journalist. This issue and your usual way of intimidation is not right. But then you already know that. The individual who spoke negatively about Chief Rubin obviously has a negative belief in his own way against the Chief. This Chief is Nationally Respected. He's apparently trying to bring about today's 21st Century Fire and EMS Service Delievery into the DCFD.
The 1960's mentality is done, over. Pack it away. Wake up smell the coffee. As far as the comments about Chief Rubin not respecting his senior Chief Command Officers. That simply isnot True. On the Metro Train Incident his Chief Officers Battalion Chiefs Assistent Chiefs etc performed well. I didnot read any positive comments from that individual about how and why, whynot, when, and carried out that enormous Strategic Operation. There is the case where asome Chief Officers who made an absolute ignorant mess of trying to dispose of a Fire Engine and Ambulance to a poor Fire Dept. Those individuals need to be reprimanded. I have read some
comments that seem to set up Chief Rubin for criticism and embarrassment. I am of the belief that those comments by those individuals including you Statter are from the warped mentality of that disgusting worthless Watch Desk Website. That is nothing more than a vehicle to vent emotions and vile words of thought against anyone who speaks with authority. These individuals are those that cannot take Direction. The previous incidents you mentioned Statter are True. However let's be
perfectly Honest and upfront here. That was then and this is now. Times change. Leading Authorities
change Policies to what is best thought to be the best way to have Media Coverage and Good Journalist reporting. The self serving ideas that so appears to be what is at stake here, must be thought out thoroughly and carried out with today's methods. I saw nothing that would tend for me to believe
anything that occurred with Media Coverage and how and why the two top Agency Chiefs coordinated their efforts.
were taken out of context. I listened to the radio show where both The Fire Chief and police Chief were on the air and questioned. This was Statter's normal way of sort of getting back when his words are challenged. Statter why didnot you just merely set up a confidential meeting between yourself The Fire Chief and Allan Etter? Then once the truth was spoken it would be ok for you post headlines on your blog. I have always respected you as a professional Journalist. This issue and your usual way of intimidation is not right. But then you already know that. The individual who spoke negatively about Chief Rubin obviously has a negative belief in his own way against the Chief. This Chief is Nationally Respected. He's apparently trying to bring about today's 21st Century Fire and EMS Service Delievery into the DCFD.
The 1960's mentality is done, over. Pack it away. Wake up smell the coffee. As far as the comments about Chief Rubin not respecting his senior Chief Command Officers. That simply isnot True. On the Metro Train Incident his Chief Officers Battalion Chiefs Assistent Chiefs etc performed well. I didnot read any positive comments from that individual about how and why, whynot, when, and carried out that enormous Strategic Operation. There is the case where asome Chief Officers who made an absolute ignorant mess of trying to dispose of a Fire Engine and Ambulance to a poor Fire Dept. Those individuals need to be reprimanded. I have read some
comments that seem to set up Chief Rubin for criticism and embarrassment. I am of the belief that those comments by those individuals including you Statter are from the warped mentality of that disgusting worthless Watch Desk Website. That is nothing more than a vehicle to vent emotions and vile words of thought against anyone who speaks with authority. These individuals are those that cannot take Direction. The previous incidents you mentioned Statter are True. However let's be
perfectly Honest and upfront here. That was then and this is now. Times change. Leading Authorities
change Policies to what is best thought to be the best way to have Media Coverage and Good Journalist reporting. The self serving ideas that so appears to be what is at stake here, must be thought out thoroughly and carried out with today's methods. I saw nothing that would tend for me to believe
anything that occurred with Media Coverage and how and why the two top Agency Chiefs coordinated their efforts.
# posted by : July 4, 2009 11:43 AM
: July 4, 2009 11:43 AM
Wow. You got all of this out of what I have wirtten?
"This was Statter's normal way of sort of getting back when his words are challenged. Statter why did not you just merely set up a confidential meeting between yourself The Fire Chief and Allan Etter? Then once the truth was spoken it would be ok for you post headlines on your blog. I have always respected you as a professional Journalist. This issue and your usual way of intimidation is not right. But then you already know that."
First, I have no axe to grind with Chief Rubin. I do though value my own reputation and credibility. It is not "getting back" but putting out the facts as I know them.
I make mistakes and when I learn of them I correct them the best I can. When someone challenges my reporting I feel it is my duty to either fix the error or, if possible, provide more material to document the reporting. That's what I have done.
I don't believe I wrote anything about this issue beyond the two days after the incident (I haven't looked and am going from memory, so double check that).
I was doing just what you suggested and dealing behind the scenes in trying to set up meetings with the chiefs to discuss how this was handled so we can all get a better idea of what to expect on the next big one. I am certain through my conversations with Crosswhite, Hayes and Etter, and my email to the chief, he was aware that we would like to discuss this.
It was a total surprise to me and to some on Chief Rubin's staff that he suddenly mentioned my reporting just wasn't true.
I think I had already followed the path you suggested in your comment and was not successful.
As for the credibility of Dennis Rubin, Alan Etter and Dave Statter, that's for you to judge and not me.
Thanks for the input.
Statter
"This was Statter's normal way of sort of getting back when his words are challenged. Statter why did not you just merely set up a confidential meeting between yourself The Fire Chief and Allan Etter? Then once the truth was spoken it would be ok for you post headlines on your blog. I have always respected you as a professional Journalist. This issue and your usual way of intimidation is not right. But then you already know that."
First, I have no axe to grind with Chief Rubin. I do though value my own reputation and credibility. It is not "getting back" but putting out the facts as I know them.
I make mistakes and when I learn of them I correct them the best I can. When someone challenges my reporting I feel it is my duty to either fix the error or, if possible, provide more material to document the reporting. That's what I have done.
I don't believe I wrote anything about this issue beyond the two days after the incident (I haven't looked and am going from memory, so double check that).
I was doing just what you suggested and dealing behind the scenes in trying to set up meetings with the chiefs to discuss how this was handled so we can all get a better idea of what to expect on the next big one. I am certain through my conversations with Crosswhite, Hayes and Etter, and my email to the chief, he was aware that we would like to discuss this.
It was a total surprise to me and to some on Chief Rubin's staff that he suddenly mentioned my reporting just wasn't true.
I think I had already followed the path you suggested in your comment and was not successful.
As for the credibility of Dennis Rubin, Alan Etter and Dave Statter, that's for you to judge and not me.
Thanks for the input.
Statter
This is more about the bigger issue and not just about this incident. Although I thought the media was treated improperly during this incident, when looking at the big picture this is really more about the government censoring the media and/or controlling what they report.
We all get upset with the media from time to time, but they actually serve a valuable purpose. The problem is the factions of the media which are biased, but the concept of the media is not the problem.
When you look at what happened here in the big picture and what will occur to society if this is allowed to continue and thus affect other areas of the media's reporting, I don't think any of us want to see that. That would definitely be a set back to the Constitution and our rights, along with our ability to have some oversight thru information of our government.
We all get upset with the media from time to time, but they actually serve a valuable purpose. The problem is the factions of the media which are biased, but the concept of the media is not the problem.
When you look at what happened here in the big picture and what will occur to society if this is allowed to continue and thus affect other areas of the media's reporting, I don't think any of us want to see that. That would definitely be a set back to the Constitution and our rights, along with our ability to have some oversight thru information of our government.
# posted by : July 4, 2009 4:25 PM
: July 4, 2009 4:25 PM
I'd love to see the day when the media actually reports the news as it TRULY happened as opposed to the way they do it which is to report only what they want you to believe.
BTW, the DC Police Chief is a very attractive young lady. How come DCFD doesn't have a pretty Chief also?
BTW, the DC Police Chief is a very attractive young lady. How come DCFD doesn't have a pretty Chief also?
# posted by : July 5, 2009 10:14 AM
: July 5, 2009 10:14 AM
When you don't have access you are relying on your government to tell you how it "really happened".
Statter
Statter
July 5, 2009 10:14 AM
Dave Statter said...
"When you don't have access you are relying on your government to tell you how it "really happened"."
Dave, ask the guys at FDNY how the NY Post reports on them. The Post will report on a FF's off duty DWI as if he is typical of all 11,000members of the uniformed force. They make the entire force out to be a pack of militant law breakers. The daily acts of kindness and heroics performed by firefighters either are not covered at all or if covered the story refers to firefighters with the generic titles of ('rescue workers' or 'emergency workers')so as to refrain from letting the public know that firefighters do an admirable job of serving them.
The NY Post blindly reports what the mayor tells them without doing any investigating of their own at all. Over the past couple of months, the Post has waged a war on firefighter and police pensions. The stories have twisted the truth and in many cases out right lied in an effort to create animosity against civil servants while at the same time boosting the image of a mayor who has gone against the voters wishes and had the term limit rule changed so that he can run for a third term in office. It's a fact that Ruppert Murdock (owner of Fox News as well as the NY Post and big supporter of mayor Bloomberg) wages one sided battles against unionized workers via his ownership of these media outlets.
Good reporters should do what it takes to get the real story. Certainly you must provide the public with the goverment's side of the story, but it's essential that you then look below the surface to insure that they have been completly up front and honest. If not, you should report what really has gone on. To say that you solely have to go with what government PIO's give you is unacceptable.
Fox throws around the phrase "Fair and balanced" when referring to how they cover the news, but just as most of the media does, Fox reports their opinion as opposed to what really happens.
Dave Statter said...
"When you don't have access you are relying on your government to tell you how it "really happened"."
Dave, ask the guys at FDNY how the NY Post reports on them. The Post will report on a FF's off duty DWI as if he is typical of all 11,000members of the uniformed force. They make the entire force out to be a pack of militant law breakers. The daily acts of kindness and heroics performed by firefighters either are not covered at all or if covered the story refers to firefighters with the generic titles of ('rescue workers' or 'emergency workers')so as to refrain from letting the public know that firefighters do an admirable job of serving them.
The NY Post blindly reports what the mayor tells them without doing any investigating of their own at all. Over the past couple of months, the Post has waged a war on firefighter and police pensions. The stories have twisted the truth and in many cases out right lied in an effort to create animosity against civil servants while at the same time boosting the image of a mayor who has gone against the voters wishes and had the term limit rule changed so that he can run for a third term in office. It's a fact that Ruppert Murdock (owner of Fox News as well as the NY Post and big supporter of mayor Bloomberg) wages one sided battles against unionized workers via his ownership of these media outlets.
Good reporters should do what it takes to get the real story. Certainly you must provide the public with the goverment's side of the story, but it's essential that you then look below the surface to insure that they have been completly up front and honest. If not, you should report what really has gone on. To say that you solely have to go with what government PIO's give you is unacceptable.
Fox throws around the phrase "Fair and balanced" when referring to how they cover the news, but just as most of the media does, Fox reports their opinion as opposed to what really happens.
# posted by : July 5, 2009 11:39 AM
: July 5, 2009 11:39 AM
How did Dennis Rubin become nationally known? By making public appearances, giving speaches and performing for the media. I am surprised that someone as savvy as Rubin doesn't understand the futility in engaging the media in this manner. Rubin is playing in the big leagues and he needs to cut his losses when he has a little bad press.
# posted by : July 5, 2009 1:16 PM
: July 5, 2009 1:16 PM
Chief Rubin Nationally recognized. Hold onto that thought....Sure in your small mind he is as you gaze through Rubes Rules....Im sure he reported those earnings on his Financial Disclosure Statement as well as the rest of his earnings from speaking...Naw because i have it in my hands and suprisingly on top of our salary as fire chief, wwe dont make any extra income do we Dennis...But wait,,,,he doesnt have too because he is the great well repspected Dennis Rubin who is above the law... For all you clowns that buy into this idiots talk and thats all it is is talk, you ought to read the District Personnel Manual and look at all he does on the outside as he uses his title for personal gain. This guy is as phony as they come.
Lets see Chief...A DUI goes unreported for 2 years, so you see fit to give member a reprimand under your fair honest and equitable disciplinary system. Member x is charged with insubordination with no investigation which results in member being disciplined before any hearing, loss of pay, admin leave, etc....Yeah you truly are a POS....Just a matter of time Denny and the cat will be let out of the bag....And trust me you will be recognized allright...stay tuned
Lets see Chief...A DUI goes unreported for 2 years, so you see fit to give member a reprimand under your fair honest and equitable disciplinary system. Member x is charged with insubordination with no investigation which results in member being disciplined before any hearing, loss of pay, admin leave, etc....Yeah you truly are a POS....Just a matter of time Denny and the cat will be let out of the bag....And trust me you will be recognized allright...stay tuned
# posted by : July 6, 2009 12:02 AM
: July 6, 2009 12:02 AM
Why don't you report how you went crying to the Chief because Vito got to stay and you didn't. Grow up Dave.
# posted by : July 6, 2009 7:42 AM
: July 6, 2009 7:42 AM
First of all I didn't cry to the chief because I haven't talked to him since the fireworks story at Nationals Stadium.
Second, you might want to get the story straight. The only thing I complained about with Vito is my efforts to get access to his tape. Etter's tape had been released the first night. The fire department believed NTSB was holding up its release. I pushed hard to get an answer and the video was sent to all TV stations that afternoon.
I did not complain about Vito. In my many conversations with the PIO staff in the days following Metro I complained about people who are not the photographer for the fire department being allowed access to take pictures and publicize them.
And Vito is aware of my concerns. If I had a problem with him (which I don't) I would talk to him first.
You might want to double check with your source. Close but no cigar. You received a bit of bad information.
Here's an assignment for you. Lets see how good your sources are. I complained to fire officials about something else involving media relations in connection with the Metro indicent. What was it?
Statter
Second, you might want to get the story straight. The only thing I complained about with Vito is my efforts to get access to his tape. Etter's tape had been released the first night. The fire department believed NTSB was holding up its release. I pushed hard to get an answer and the video was sent to all TV stations that afternoon.
I did not complain about Vito. In my many conversations with the PIO staff in the days following Metro I complained about people who are not the photographer for the fire department being allowed access to take pictures and publicize them.
And Vito is aware of my concerns. If I had a problem with him (which I don't) I would talk to him first.
You might want to double check with your source. Close but no cigar. You received a bit of bad information.
Here's an assignment for you. Lets see how good your sources are. I complained to fire officials about something else involving media relations in connection with the Metro indicent. What was it?
Statter
I wonder where the lengthy comments that are posted on here praising Rubin and his command staff's performance at the accident scene are coming from. Are certain AFC getting angry and lashing out in an anonymous form of blog response? Dave is not protesting the control of the press and their accessing during the incident. He is reporting on how it was undertaken, and the effective black-out in information that stemmed from the Chief’s Decision. What we must all recognize is that the Rubin and Lanier do not even use the bathroom without Fenty’s permission. You want to know why the press black out took place look right at the mayor’s office. The subsequent cover up that seems to be taking place after the act by Rubin getting caught up in his own lies is irrelevant. He lies, he lies to the men of his department, he lies to the public, and of course he lies to the press. To all those that get on here to support and praise Rubin, you are crazy to support this man. He is out for himself; he has no other agenda or care in this world but himself. Anything that you would cite as improvements he has made to the DCFD are only of mere coincidence, because in his efforts to make himself look good he may have in effect brought about some small change to our department. Make no mistake this man is a tornado. Just look at the aftermath that he has left with every other department he touches. No one was saying give the press control or free reign at the scene; those on here who have made those counter arguments are absurd. The fact is they did something, and are now lying about why they did it. Public officials aren’t supposed to lie, if something changed and we can now lie to the public someone forgot to tell me.
Bottom line is this on an incident of the scale it is the responsibility of the AHJ to provide accurate information to the public to inform them of the situation. Say you are Joe citizen sitting at home waiting for you wife to get home from work and she normally takes the METRO, and happens to ride that particular line, and happens to travel at that particular time. You only avenue to information is what you see on the TV. If the FD and PD don’t put out what they know to the public because they are concerned with getting the right camera shot or want to wait because they may step on the bi-polar lunatic Fenty’s toes-then what good are they doing for the public they say they are serving. Where is their customer service in that?
Dave is right to bring this to the surface, he caught them lying and they won't admit it, that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
Bottom line is this on an incident of the scale it is the responsibility of the AHJ to provide accurate information to the public to inform them of the situation. Say you are Joe citizen sitting at home waiting for you wife to get home from work and she normally takes the METRO, and happens to ride that particular line, and happens to travel at that particular time. You only avenue to information is what you see on the TV. If the FD and PD don’t put out what they know to the public because they are concerned with getting the right camera shot or want to wait because they may step on the bi-polar lunatic Fenty’s toes-then what good are they doing for the public they say they are serving. Where is their customer service in that?
Dave is right to bring this to the surface, he caught them lying and they won't admit it, that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
# posted by : July 6, 2009 9:21 AM
: July 6, 2009 9:21 AM
As a officer who was on the bridge we were told to move the press off the bridge for the a suppose helicopter landing. That news van you speak of Dave was told several times they need to move and were even given five more minutes longer on the bridge than any other press because they were shooting from the top of the van. Every other member of the press was able to move off the bridge why were they any different.
# posted by : July 6, 2009 10:49 AM
: July 6, 2009 10:49 AM
You were there and I won't argue with you that was the case. I did see our reporter in a number of conversations with Sgt. Parsons.
The truck was behind the yellow police tape that is seen in the video. I assume another line was set up behind it.
If we were wrong on that point, we were wrong. I am not going to blindly defend it. I do know the police PIO intervened and eventually allowed us to retrieve the truck.
Statter
The truck was behind the yellow police tape that is seen in the video. I assume another line was set up behind it.
If we were wrong on that point, we were wrong. I am not going to blindly defend it. I do know the police PIO intervened and eventually allowed us to retrieve the truck.
Statter
Wow, all this verbal diarhea and no workable solutions. Fact the mayor is a control freak whose lack of experince and arrogance shine through everytime he speaks. Fact, the Fire Chief is a publicity loving carpet bagger. Fact, I cannot figure out the Police Chief. Assumption based on my idea of facts, most people perceive the media as bloodsuckers who would sell their mother to get a story or hide behind freedom of information at the drop of a hat. Final fact, I am just happy to be here and will work my butt off when called to serve.
I guess if you only know the outer shell of Dennis Rubin, then i can see how you would praise this god of the fire service, because any fool can buy into his over done well rehearsed speeches. How many went out of there way to pay to see this clown speak when he was chief of Dothan versus Washington DC...He hit the jackpot here for himself too further his own agenda. Dan Tangerlini brought him here and to Fenty this guy was a shoe in for the job..Same way he fools the people at the monthly conferences he speaks at, was the same approach he used to get the job here. Unfortunately he chose the wrong place to bring his circus act. Its funny too that the long drawn out posts are either Rubin or someone buried up his side C. Anyone who praises him for the Metro incident or any fire in the District is a sandwich or 2 short of a picnic.
Just like its been stated, this is about one person who fails to tell the truth. Crooked people dont accept the truth very well, so its easier to lie consistently.
And if people like Rubin and his 2 children under him dont like people talking bad about them, then do us all a favor and leave before your asked too.....Either way its all thewatchdesks fault huh Bubes....Dave you oughta dig deeper than this, its amazing the amount of bad press you could give Rubin and then we can see how many followers buy into his BS..Kinda reminds me of the phony preacher on Sunday TV,,,,If you believe in Jesus, get out your checkbook...etcccc
Post a Comment
Just like its been stated, this is about one person who fails to tell the truth. Crooked people dont accept the truth very well, so its easier to lie consistently.
And if people like Rubin and his 2 children under him dont like people talking bad about them, then do us all a favor and leave before your asked too.....Either way its all thewatchdesks fault huh Bubes....Dave you oughta dig deeper than this, its amazing the amount of bad press you could give Rubin and then we can see how many followers buy into his BS..Kinda reminds me of the phony preacher on Sunday TV,,,,If you believe in Jesus, get out your checkbook...etcccc
# posted by : July 6, 2009 11:44 PM
: July 6, 2009 11:44 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
