« Consider Yourself Warned | Main | Nobody Likes a Flirt »
August 27, 2007
Looking for "Macaca"
Susan Collins has recently complained about being followed around by a Tom Allen-sponsored cameraman. The Bangor Daily News, inexplicably, supports Collins' efforts to limit who can film her in in public.
The Republican Journal rightly criticizes her.
What’s wrong with holding a U.S. Senator on the campaign trail accountable for what she says? We believe this falls firmly under the rights giving us a public government and freedom of the press.This isn't a case of Allen's campaign filming her mowing the lawn or shopping in downtown Camden. Collins is complaining about being filmed while she's acting in her capacity as a public official or a candidate. As far as I'm concerned, anything she does or says at those times is fair game.What’s next? Will Collins next ask the press to leave her alone at public functions such as parades?
We aren’t necessarily big fans of the “got you!” moments that have defined some campaigns where a candidate is caught off-guard or out of context, but there is a very real danger when newspapers and politicians seek to limit the freedom to watch political figures at work. It’s a short walk from limiting tracking to infringing on freedom of the press and creating a secret government. We’ve gotten too close to that already in recent years.
Instead of seeking to ban the cameras from public events, perhaps Collins should consider anther approach - don't do or say anything stupid on the campaign trail. After all, it wasn't a quote on policy that tripped up George Allen's campaign. The now-former senator was caught on camera insulting a young staffer from the other campaign.
Instead of limiting access, avoid unforced errors.
UPDATE - Lance Dutson of the Maine Web Report, a site I like and recommend (and one I just realized is not on the blogroll) has responded in the comments. He makes some fair points.
Having these folks create a barrier between her and the public she was trying to interact with is not an acceptable thing for an opposing campaign to do, regardless of how jaded one may be to the concept of campaigning altogether. Having them jump into a parade and create a scene is straight from the MoveOn handbook, and the intent is to disrupt, plain and simple.I have no love for the bitter (and poorly named) malcontents at MoveOn.org, and I do recognize the potent political advantage Collins gains by making this an issue, but respectfully disagree with Mr. Dutson.
If the guy is being deliberately disruptive, then by all means those actions should be criticized. But I believe that when a candidate talks to supporters, sometimes what he or she says is newsworthy.
I also take real issue with the attempts to characterize this as somehow intimidating the candidate, the language used by the BDN:
Nominally, tracking is used to gather information, but in reality, a camera stuck in the face of the opponent is a weapon to intimidate, harass and provoke that person into doing something foolishTo me, this is uncomfortably close to Hillary Clinton claiming she was intimidated by Rick Lazio during the New York Senate debate. If someone is threatening the senator or her supporters, or being overtly disruptive, then by all means it should be dealt with. But I just can't see something as passive as filming fitting that criteria.
Posted by slublog at August 27, 2007 09:38 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3320
Comments
The issue here isn't whether it is OK to film someone in public. The issue is that this guy actually entered the parade, along with another person from MoveOn.org, and marched along with Collins and state senator Carol Weston for the entirety of the parade. Then, once the parade had concluded, he filmed the license plate of the car that Collins drove off in.
I was right there with Collins when this happened, and I can tell you directly that, had this guy simply been filming from a distance, this never would have been an issue.
If someone was giving a speech somewhere, no one would be concerned if someone filmed it. But if that person got on stage and filmed from the podium, then people would be justifiably bothered. The intent here seems to have been to cause a distraction or disruption, and that is what we have reacted to. No one is claiming it's not ok to film someone in public, that would be ridiculous.
Having these folks create a barrier between her and the public she was trying to interact with is not an acceptable thing for an opposing campaign to do, regardless of how jaded one may be to the concept of campaigning altogether. Having them jump into a parade and create a scene is straight from the MoveOn handbook, and the intent is to disrupt, plain and simple. This is not what most people in Maine want to see happen to this campaign, and we are simply asking the Allen camp to accept a basic set of ground rules that allows for all the 'research' they need or want, but also preserves a degree of respect for the candidates and the general public.
(for full disclosure, I work for the Collins campaign)
Posted by: Lance Dutson at August 27, 2007 02:03 PM
Yeah it sucks on the campaign trail when you have some div running along getting in the way just to be a pain in the arse. Its happened since campaigns began no doubt; the filming thing is just a new twist.
Posted by: Lagwolf at August 27, 2007 06:05 PM
One small correction: Clinton did not claim that her opponent intimidated her, only that he was trying to. (He had no clue his gestures could be so interpreted, and would be, by a smarter opponent. Duh.) She never said he succeeded as Collins seems to say. Clinton's claim to feeling "disappointed" and "betrayed" are damaging enough, IMO. But she has never claimed she felt intimidated. Maybe Collins just needs more practice swatting flies.
Posted by: ACar at August 29, 2007 10:12 AM