Comments on: Controversy Over Video Record Of Legislature

By: Flyhead

Flyhead — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:20:00 +0000

I can’t imagine why the legislature would not want IPTV to keep an archive of the legislature and all that goes on with a video record. The written word never does convey the passion and inuendo that a video record would preserve for the ages.

I rely on IDAHO REPORTS on public TV to fill me in on what goes on in the legislature. It is a very good summary and analysis for Idaho taxpayers. This program along with what is captured via IPTV should be part of the archives of the legislative process unless someone has a better idea.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:52:24 +0000

Hoffman is a lobbyist and should not get a press pass. That is not hard to understand.

If Hoffman wants to keep the video records at the expense of his lobby group, then let him. If the legislature wants a “record” copy then they have to do it themselves or find someone they trust (obviously not Hoffman or the idaho Freedom Foundation).

By: boiseBob

boiseBob — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:29:13 +0000

Wayne Hoffman is a bomb thrower, not a legitimate reporter. Legislature is wise to make sure these videos are archived properly allowing for public access.

By: riksha

riksha — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:26:59 +0000

If the Freedom Fdn. is “doing God’s work”, why is Idaho so low among all the states on a variety of important mesures, such as education? health? diabetes? obesity? on and on?

By: slfisher

slfisher — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:03:41 +0000

Incidentally, so far as I know, the Boise Guardian could be a member of the Capitol Correspondents, too, and get press access, and you could see for yourself what’s involved with it. I was a member through my free monthly column for the Kuna Melba News.

By: slfisher

slfisher — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:02:04 +0000

There’s kinda more to it than that.

First of all, we’re conflating two issues here (and Dan Popkey did the same thing in his story) — the credentialing aspect, and the archiving of the Legislature video archives.I actually agree that the videos should be archived. What concerns me about the way the IFF is doing it is that by not getting the legislators’ buy-in, we run the risk of them stopping videotaping altogether, and that would be a loss.

And, I agree with legislators who are concerned about what use the IFF might make of the videos; they praise the work of Breitbart, for example, who got famous by selectively editing videos and then releasing the results to the media.

The credentialing thing is a separate issue, and I speak as a person who has been credentialed in past years (and could be again, if I ever made it to the Statehouse where it could be worthwhile). Employees of lobbying organizations don’t get credentialed. It has nothing to do with viewpoint, accuracy, or anything else. The Farm Bureau and the IEA, for example, also have writers, and they also don’t get credentialed. If that rule were relaxed for one organization, then every lobbying organization could have “reporters” and legislators wouldn’t know who the real reporters are.

Nothing stops the IFF, or anyone else, from reporting on the Legislature. I’ve done it myself without being a member of the Capitol Correspondents. It means you have to wear a badge identifying yourself as press so the legislators know who you are, it means you get access to the press room in the basement (where people on deadline for daily papers have a place to plug in their laptops and hang their coats, basically), and you get to sit at the press table in the chambers nearer to the action. That’s it.