Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials

from the um-what? dept

Another day, another attack on a free press. The latest: a long-time reporter, Daniel Heyman, of the Public News Service in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions of Trump administration officials. Heyman yelled some questions to Health & Human Services Director Tom Price along with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway:

Daniel Ralph Heyman, 54, with the Public News Service of West Virginia, was freed on $5,000 bond Tuesday night on a charge of “willful disruption of government processes,” according to a criminal complaint.

?The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,? the complaint states. It adds Heyman caused a disturbance by ?yelling questions at Ms. Conway and Secretary Price.?

Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials. That’s their job. And, sure, some will argue that the complaint says that he was “aggressively breaching the secret service agents,” but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond ordinary questioning happened:

Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price’s group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was racing after them.

“I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that,” she told Public News Service. “Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody’s attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone’s space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself.”

And, making matters worse, rather than admitting to over-aggressive enforcement, Price is cheering on the arrest:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price on Wednesday commended police in West Virginia for ?doing what they thought was appropriate? in arresting a journalist who shouted questions at him, but added that it wasn?t his call to say whether they took the proper measures.

Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. ?That gentleman was not in a press conference,? he said.

I’m curious if Price (or anyone else, for that matter) could point to where in the First Amendment there’s a rule that says the press is only allowed to ask questions “at a press conference.” That’s not how it works. There’s also this:

Asked Wednesday by STAT whether he thought Heyman should have been arrested, Price said: ?That?s not my decision to make.?

Well, that’s only partially true. Obviously, the local law enforcement gets to make that decision, but there’s nothing stopping a competent public official from telling law enforcement to knock it off and to answer a few basic questions from a reporter.

In an era where we’re hearing more and more about both attacks on a free press, as well as the need for a stronger press, these kinds of shenanigans should not be allowed. In the past, when we’ve covered police arresting reporters, the courts have come out repeatedly in favor of the reporters (that whole First Amendment thing still matters). But that’s of little use in the moment when police are dragging reporters off to jail for shouting questions outside a press conference.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
117 Comments
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Pookie… can you tell the class who appointed him?
Can you tell us who’s special advisor was walking with him?

I find it frightening that your only concern appears to be the use of the word Trump to accurately portray the players involved instead of concern that a member of the press who no one else except the public offical seems to think was being over the top.

But by all means hit reply and scream but her emails to try and distract from the idea that the Trump Administration lies to and about the press when it suits them, and that this time it has an arrest that most likely was bogus to keep a politician from being upset because someone asked him a question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Hey! Welcome back from your nap, Rip van Winkle.

Don’t let Trump’s constant predecessor blaming fool you. Trump was elected and sworn into the highest office of the land, so the Whitehouse Senior Advisors and HHS Directors are members of the Trump Administration.

This is how Republicans do Government, baby!

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don’t understand the ongoing confusion really. The term ‘fake news’ first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn’t occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don’t agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn’t changed. Words still mean things. I hope…

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When it was originally coined, it referred to literally news that was fake. i.e. “Obama prays to Mecca every day”, “Hillary eats babies for breakfast”, etc. Since the election cycle was so full of that crap, some people stopped being able to work out what was real and what wasn’t, so they now just think it refers to news that opposes their preconceived assumptions even if it’s 100% verified factual information.

btr1701 is a liar says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They were used both before and since, becoming a widespread practice during the Bush Jr. League Administration (during th e inauguration, as I recall).

Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit. The issue at hand isn’t specific to R or D or “left” or “right”, whatever you think those words mean.

But do go on attacking people you don’t know. Enjoy your Two Minutes’ Hate.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

They were used both before and since, becoming a
> widespread practice during the Bush Jr.

Only to the extend that the court challenges filed during the waning years of the Clinton term hadn’t been fully adjudicated at that point. Once the courts ruled that free speech zones are unconstitutional, they were done away with.

> Your partisan bias is obvious and does you no credit.

As if it’s any greater than the rest of the folks here. The only difference is that you agree with the bias of the majority of the commenters here. I sure don’t see you calling them out for it the way you did me.

> Enjoy your Two Minutes’ Hate.

Now whose bias is showing?

Having a differing political viewpoint or disagreeing with someone’s political position is not ‘hate’. I said nothing hateful in my post. I merely took a political/philosophical position with which you disagree.

I’m sorry if I triggered you, but labeling everything you don’t like and don’t want to hear as ‘hate’ makes your bias obvious and does you no credit.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Fake News engaging in Criminal Journalism

Can’t certain questions rise to the level of a crime, "willful disrupting of government processes", or "felony embarrassment of a politician"?

What about a capital offense such as exposing government corruption by engaging in criminal activity known as "investigative journalism"?

Or an act of treason such as when a journalist exposes government official traitors engaging in common ordinary capitalism to sell out our country to foreign interests?

In a real dictatorship, journalists get approval from the government before publishing.

Anonymous Coward says:

The reporter was shouting repeatedly after being told not to. There is a difference between being a good reporter trying to get an answer for the public and acting like idiot because people are not paying attention to you.

If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“There is a difference between being a good reporter trying to get an answer for the public and acting like idiot because people are not paying attention to you.”

Yeah, every reporter should sheepishly retreat the moment an immediate answer is not forthcoming and never ask again. That’s how you get answers from reluctant subjects /s

I mean, seriously, you accept the government openly lying to you and it’s the press’s fault if they don’t accept silence as an explanation?

“If I repeatedly yelled (USING ALL CAPS) in this forum the same statement over and over a dozen times I too would get banned.”

No, you wouldn’t. You’d have your comments reported by the community and future posts held for moderation. But you wouldn’t get banned. Nor would the case you decided to post in make any difference.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: it's clickbait

The point is, when he gets to court and they read the charges against him, they aren’t going to say he’s charged with “attempting to ask a question”. That’s what makes it clickbait. If this site is mostly advertising supported, then I guess there’s justification. I still don’t like it though.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 it's clickbait

“The point is, when he gets to court and they read the charges against him, they aren’t going to say he’s charged with “attempting to ask a question”.”

So, you’re saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line. All other reporting should be rejected, even if they’re equally (or even more) accurate. Got it.

Sorry, but when the Chinese held Ai Weiwei for “economic crimes”, that doesn’t mean that the reporters who noted he was being held for his activism were writing clickbait. (for example)

“If this site is mostly advertising supported”

It’s not, and there’s articles where it’s explained why they don’t mind people using ad blockers here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 it's clickbait

If I write a letter to Tom Price with the exact same questions in it, what do you think will happen? He has written proof that I asked the questions that are apparently illegal. Think I’ll get arrested?

> So, you’re saying that the only valid headline is the one that parrots the official government line.

The only valid headline is one that is objectively accurate. Trying to introduce emotion is where clickbait starts (and this headline is undoubtedly clickbait).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 it's clickbait

If that includes you, I would point out that the article sources it’s reasoning for the headline – the eyewitness who disputes the official government/”what he’ll be charged with” statement you are championing – and sourcing your reasoning is the exact opposite of clickbait.

So my constructive criticism for you is that your post was a bit reactionary and clickbaitey itself, under your terms, and maybe you should consider the replies to you as constructive criticism as well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 it's clickbait

Neither the headline nor the court will contain “attempting to ask a question”. The question was asked, repeatedly. He was arrested for aggressively and repeatedly asking a question, and the headline here reflects that. So do the actual charges, and the witnesses at the scene.

So what’s the problem again?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Was it illegal?

That’s for the courts to decide.

> Should it be?

Should willful disruption of government processes be illegal? Yes. Should asking a question be illegal? No. And it isn’t.

> Is this right?

If it went down as Mr. Price says it did, then no, of course it isn’t. If it went down as the police report says, then perhaps it is. I guess it depends if he was disrupting government processes or not.

John Cressman (profile) says:

NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

Please, not alt-left crazed headlines and cherry picked facts.

The reporter was arrested for REPEATEDLY trying to get through the line of Secret Service agents who were on protection detail.

He was warned twice and finally arrested for continuing.

They did EXACTLY what they should have. Don’t try to hide his bad behavior behind some journalistic shield.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

From a person in the scene:

“I saw nothing in his behavior, I heard nothing that indicated any kind of aggressive behavior or anything like that,” she told Public News Service. “Just simple, you know, trying to get somebody’s attention and ask them a question. It seems to me there was no violation of anyone’s space, or physicality, other than the arrest itself.”

Of course you know more than someone who was there, right?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

The reporter was arrested for REPEATEDLY trying to get through the line of Secret Service agents who were on protection detail.

According to other eyewitnesses, he did raise his voice in an attempt to make himself heard and get an answer to his questions, but he neither pushed nor assaulted anyone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses, because I’m assuming they’re on the media side of this war.

Kinda like the witnesses for some murders that caused riots were on the other side of that war, and their testimony turned out to be false.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

“For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses, because I’m assuming they’re on the media side of this war. “

A war between the government and a free press? I know partisanship is getting ridiculous, but they’ve managed to convince you that the fourth estate is an enemy combatant now?

Interesting that you assume that people who were actually there cannot be believed, so you have to believe the testimony of people who weren’t…

Se Habla Espol says:

Re: Re: Re:2 NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

A war between the government and a free press? I know partisanship is getting ridiculous, but they’ve managed to convince you that the fourth estate is an enemy combatant now?

Well, trump is the duly elected dictator; trump must therefore always be considered right; and trump says the press is the enemy (except for Bannon and his friends). What’s the problem?

dubious says:

Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

So what you are saying is that you will not believe an eye witness, several, to an event because you assume they are affiliated with the media?

I admit that there are issues with witness biases but you do realize that you are also unable to believe what the arresting officer(s) say because they are on the side of the official who did not want to be bothered by a reporter?

I would love a video but until a video, several because one will never be adequate, appears that shows what happened I would rather side with several witnesses who were only witnesses and not directly involved over what either of the two parties say.

Cowardly Lion says:

Re: Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

"I’m assuming they’re on the media side of this war." – If you believe this you have no idea how the media works; they’re in massive competition with each other. And this "war" you speak of is as fake as hell.

"For some reason, I find it hard to believe any eyewitnesses" – this makes you a bit douchey. For some reason, I find it hard to give your comment any credence.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: NO FALSE NARRATIVE!

Do you have “dumb attempt to defend with a variation of term/meme used by the “left” to criticise the “right”, but with no understanding of what it actually means to begin with”?

That’s a bit long-winded for a bingo card, but it’s a regular tactic for idiots who think of politics as a team sport.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE

well, yes — the TD narrative here is heavily biased and spun.

this incident with Daniel Heyman is trivial and no threat to general press freedom.

However, Heyman should not have been arrested; it’s typical police over-reaction, evident all over the nation.

The “willful disruption of governmental processes” law is obviously stupid and unconstitutionally vague. No ordinary American ever heard of it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ---- FALSE NARRATIVE

“no threat to general press freedom”

Says you. What makes you an expert on this topic and why should I believe you?

” No ordinary American ever heard of it.”

Or maybe they just made that up
Or maybe that is one of those secret laws
But yeah – nothing to worry about, move along, nothing to see here.

Anonymous Coward says:

What behavior by a reporter is not allowed?

Is there any behavior by a reporter that is not allowed? Can they yell in an elected officials face? How about continuously interrupting him and preventing him from being able to talk to others? Do they have to listen to orders from the police that are trying to keep order or can they ignore the police?

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: What behavior by a politician is allowed?

What behavior by a politician is allowed?

Especially in a democracy that is supposed to be answerable to the people those politicians are openly betraying? They don’t even try to hide it any more. Just as an example, just an example, they are happy to destroy our health care by passing a highly controversial bill that they won’t even bother to read or understand, without letting the other party even see it first. Does that sound like the behavior of crooks trying to hide something?

DannyB (profile) says:

War On News

Welcome to the new administration’s War On News.

When a government labels the news media as the enemy of the people; tries to discredit long time respectable media as “fake news” and “failing”; conducts a war like campaign against the media; and then begins to escalate that to physical violence . . .

. . . that government needs to be changed immediately if not sooner!

It is not just this minor incident. It is the entire pattern of how the administration regards the news media. The freedom of the press is something to be Trumpled under foot.

Assuming democracy survives, which is by no means guaranteed, this will get worse before it gets better. Optimists are full of it and assume everything can be fixed. Pessimists are usually right. When people move from freedom to dictatorship they wonder what went wrong and how it could have happened. We’re seeing it before our eyes. Right here on TD. For years now. Creeping by inches. But moving inexorably. No matter which party is in power.

JoeCool (profile) says:

Re: War On News

I’d call it the new level of transparency in government.

Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

See? Now you can only ask questions in a "press conference". So when will there be a press conference? "We’ll get back to you on that."

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: War On News

Not too long ago, and maybe even now, we were complaining about the press being stenographers for the government and spewing out the administration’s line. Now, even if the press is spewing the administrations line, it’s fake news. It looks like the press has a long way to go to rehabilitate itself, on one hand to the public, and on the other hand to the administration. And just to be clear, those two positions are antithetical to each other.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Price said the reporter confronted him while he was walking down a hallway. “That gentleman was not in a press conference,” he said.

A press conference. That’s where Press Secretary Sean Spicer gets to pick and choose which reporters may ask a question. Often to get soft-ball questions from far-right sites with little or no credibility.

Which is why media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government.

Anonymous Coward says:

You know the exciting thing about this whole event is that no one has answered the question the journalist was asking. “Is domestic violence considered a preexisting condition?”

I guess we’re all so wrapped up in this shit that it doesn’t matter. Good work everyone, we’re doing the administrations job for them!

McFortner (profile) says:

Press' responsibility?

“Whether you like it or not, the press is kind of supposed to ask questions of elected officials.”

Whether you like it or not, breaching security multiple times to an area he is not authorized to is against the law. How would you like it, sir, if he had broken into your private residence to berate you with questions?

Yeah, I didn’t think so….

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Press' responsibility?

Nonsense. Media scrums are a standard part of reporting on government. It was a public building, not a private residence. Otherwise:

"How would you like it, sir," if government officials only answered to the public at press conferences where they could personally pick who got to ask a question, favoring those with little or no credibility who will ask softball questions?

Granted, it seems you’d like exactly that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Press' responsibility?

“breaching security”

I’m a bit ignorant of this particular term … perhaps you could enlighten me.

Certainly, shouting is not a breach of security. Did he touch anyone? Duck ‘n dodge? Throw something?

What exactly constitutes this “breach” anyway. My guess is that it is a bullshit charge that will be dropped as soon as he gets council.

btr1701 (profile) says:

> …that he was “aggressively breaching the Secret Service
> agents,” but others on the scene indicated nothing beyond
> ordinary questioning happened:

> Valerie Woody, who was there as outreach coordinator for
> the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Price’s
> group was moving quickly down a hallway and Heyman was
> racing after them.

But was the hallway closed to public and press? If the USSS closed down that area as part of the secure perimeter and this guy decided to ignore it, then he breached security, which is a violation of 18 USC 1752.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Plus, if an evacuation ingress and egress route is for
> emergency use only, then why is the elected official
> using it?

The Secret Service keeps ingress and egress routes clear in case they have an emergency and need to quickly and safely evacuate the protectee. The emergency routes are set up for the protectee.

(And neither of the protectees in this case were elected officials, so I don’t even know why you brought that up.)

OA (profile) says:

A Broader Issue

Incidents like this are broader, more connected and more serious than they appear:

1. Increasingly, our nation as a society, seems to comfortably believe that to speak or be heard can only be done in narrow ways and with narrow timing if at all.

2. We have large numbers of people who are mostly not heard and whose concerns are largely unrepresented. The responsibilities of both politicians and media are supposed to fall heavily in this area.

3. Much of our popular culture effectively, when not willfully, “celebrates” the absence of invisible people.

4. Membership in the invisible people club is accelerating, diversifying and pressuring in different “domains”.

5. Notice that some of the reaction to this incident is similar to popular attitudes on protests. We suppress the opportunities to speak, inquire and be heard. We create frustration and desperation. Then try to suppress and vilify the natural and inevitable responses.

6. Problems like this are part of the spectrum of a single type of issue that I will refrain from labeling. Many of us “arbitrarily” object only at certain levels*. Due, in part, to this nation’s “original sin” (which still has never been addressed) and that other manifestations of the issue are “useful”. The Media helped grow the invisible class and are now being pressured to join it.

OA

*Whenever there is talk of another cop shooting of an unarmed black male there are plenty on the INTERNET who aggressively insist that being black is completely unimportant. Abuse against blacks by police is a very old issue. It was GUARANTEED to eventually spread outside of vulnerable minorities (for reasons that are outside the scope of this comment). ONLY after it spread did this “invisible issue” become outrageous. This spread also came with foolish and disingenuous comments like: “it’s about class not race”. Too many, in a wide variety of scenarios, think they can “solve” problems without correctly identifying them.

Anonymous Coward says:

I don't know...

I’ve seen plenty of instances where Trump’s people have been “creative” about avoiding questioning and trying to control the press. I’ve also seen the press thinking that they have the God-given right to be incredibly rude, intrusive, and even rule-breaking in pursuit of any faint chance that they might be able to get a story. Who’s right in this instance? I have no idea.

Was the reporter going into an area that was supposed to be secure? It may be “just a hallway”, but if it’s supposed to be a secure area, and this reporter keeps barging into it… then I could see both versions being kind of true, but the arrest as still being justified.

But as I said, I don’t know. Did anybody by any chance grab some video?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I don't know...

This made me think of poor Mitt and his 47% gaffe, yeah, I guess that was a stretch.

I’ve also seen the press thinking that they have the God-given right to be incredibly rude, intrusive, and even rule-breaking in pursuit of any faint chance that they might be able to get a story.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: I don't know...

Given there was another eye-witness who wasn’t arrested, I would guess that the area wasn’t ‘secure’ and was open for others to use, so that at least would be out as far as justifications for the arrest.

The statement made by that eyewitness would also seem to contradict the ‘aggressive’ narrative that the arrest was based on, though it’s possible that the SS had a different idea as to what constituted ‘too close’ that differed from the eyewitness’ and the arrested reporter’s.

The fact that ‘yelling questions’ was categorized as ‘causing a disturbance’ is all sorts of questionable on it’s own, and the fact that it was included in the complaint does not bode well for the rest of the thing, especially given the other two points above.

tom (profile) says:

If I read TFA correctly, the reporter, Mr Heyman asked a question of Mr Price as he walked by with other people,(assuming this was in a public space in the building, well within his rights to ask the question.) Mr Price declined to answer, also well with his rights. Mr Heyman, not content with the non-answer, pursued Mr Price and party, continuing to ask his question(s).

Sounds like the real issue here is whether Mr Heymen’s pursuit of asking his questions crossed the line of proper behavior and into the area of becoming a public disturbance. Sounds like some law enforcement thought so.

Hopefully, there is some video of the incident prior to the arrest that can be viewed to see if Mr Heyman’s actions in any way were a public disturbance.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And people like yourself need to search a little harder for the truth because everything about this guy screams insanity.

You can’t have a socialized healthcare system if you have no incentives for people to join while they’re healthy…But this so-called journalist claims that we should continue to allow people to game the system by only paying for health insurance once they’re sick or hurt without any penalties.

Anonymous Coward says:

Pfft False Flag Journalism

So arresting some nut aggressively charging and screaming over and over again at Price if domestic violence would be considered a pre-existing condition under the proposed health care overhaul is a violation of the 1st amendment?

Sorry but the 1st Amendment doesn’t give you the right to act like an aggressive prick to anyone you please most especially if it was your intention to get your self arrested.

Listen, this loon is talking about a tiny fraction of the population and is over-inflating all of this in some white night effort to draw it attention as if it’s some terrible injustice – which it’s not. This idiot doesn’t understand that under the current conditions people end up paying less by going uninsured followed by joining the moment they get sick or hurt which is hurting everyone. “The purpose of these provisions isn’t to punish people who are sick, but to create an incentive for people to buy insurance while they are healthy.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...