White House: Ferguson no-fly didn't restrict press

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By JACK GILLUM and JOAN LOWY

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House said Monday a no-fly zone the U.S. government imposed over Ferguson, Missouri, for nearly two weeks in August should not have restricted helicopters for news organizations that wanted to operate in the area to cover violent protests there.

Audio recordings obtained by The Associated Press showed the Federal Aviation Administration working with local authorities to define a 37-square-mile flight restriction so that only police helicopters and commercial flights could fly through the area, following demonstrations over the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

The Obama administration's defense of its actions centered on a provision of obscure federal regulations intended to allow press flights as long as they meet certain conditions. White House spokesman Josh Earnest sidestepped questions about conversations on the tapes showing police working with the FAA to keep media away.

"In this case, what the FAA says is that they took the prudent step of implementing the temporary flight restriction in the immediate aftermath of reports of shots fired at a police helicopter, but within 12 to 14 hours, that flight restriction was updated in a way to remove restrictions for reporters who were seeking to operate in the area," Earnest said.

FULL story at link.



FILE - In this Monday, Aug. 18, 2014 file photo, people stand near a cloud of tear gas in Ferguson, Mo. during protests for the Aug. 9 shooting of unarmed black 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white police officer. The U.S. government agreed to a police request to shut down several miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, even though authorities said their purpose was to keep media helicopters away during protests in August, according to recordings of air traffic control conversations obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141103/us--ferguson-no_fly-21de37f3b8.html

[Garion_55]

1. the headline is confusing

they didnt? or they shouldnt have? seems like they are saying that they did, but was a mistake. or something. or am i buggin? lol

[bemildred]

7. That's the idea, create doubt, uncertainty. nt

[mahannah]

2. Should not or did not?

[Man from Pickens]

3. AP Exclusive: Ferguson no-fly zone aimed at media

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/674886091e344ffa95e92eb482e02be1/ap-exclusive-ferguson-no-fly-zone-aimed-media

getting mixed messages here

On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police helicopters fly through the area — but ban others.

"They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. "But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."

FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option that would accommodate that.

"There is really ... no option for a TFR that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.

The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.

Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.

But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

[blackspade]

4. This all seems intentionally contradictory

This appears to in violation of law/FAA regulations...

[Supersedeas]

10. which may mean someone is not telling the truth

[Cha]

5. Yeah, I believe Josh Earnest.. thank you, Steve.

[whereisjustice]

6. A Free press - how could the people who wrote the Bill of Rights gotten it so wrong?????

We all see that a free press is a danger to Government. Jeez, those founders sure were dumb.

Any local, state or federal government should be able to restrict the press whenever it is inconvenient for the ruling party.

For example, like when they arrested the press for covering the Deep Horizon spill and created a no-fly zone to prevent reporters and scientists from documenting the massive extent of the spill.

Don't worry it's OK when a Democratic administration does it.

But when a Republican does it...... HELL HATH NO FURY!

[Earth_First]

8. At the risk of making a reverse course in my personal opinions on the topic...

Time for the free press to direct action utilizing The Establishments' own technology and get a drone or two into the media.

I realize this complicates the issue entirely...however fight fire with fire in this circumstance.

Fuck 'em.

[PeoViejo]

9. " news organizations that wanted to operate in the area to cover violent protests there. "

It seems to me that the "violence", by far, was from the Police and the News might have documented such "violence". That is what the Police were concerned about.