Resistance Spokesperson Destroys Recordings
Mar 7th, 2010 | By Matt Chambers | Category: Featured“I’m told we’re in a war for a just and equal society. If we wish to win that war we will not win it by engaging in the tactics we most despise,” said David Eby, Executive Director of the B.C. Civil Liberties association.
He was speaking at a VIVO-hosted discussion on ‘diversity of tactics’, and was addressing specifically the black-clad demonstrators who clashed with police and smashed windows during the Feb. 12th, 2010 ‘Heart Attack’ Olympic protest.
The same evening David Eby was making this statement, I was cornered by activists at the Olympic Tent Village and threatened while Olympic Resistance Network spokesperson Harsha Walia snatched my cell phone and deleted my audio recordings.
At around 8.40pm, Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010, photographer Liam Hanham and I entered the Olympic Tent Village at 58 W Hastings, intending to cover reports of undercover police officers infiltrating and provoking the encampment. At the entrance we greeted the half dozen people milling about with a nod and ‘hello’.
“Okay everyone, we’re about to start the meeting,” a woman called out as we surveyed our surroundings. We opted to pass the two dozen people gathering beneath the large tarps near the entrance, and proceed into the heart of the camp.
Inside, only two people were visible: a man who exited the toilet and disappeared beneath a tarp, and a young woman from Calgary who sat in front of a fire drinking orange liquor from a plastic bottle.
She invited us to sit and talk.
“It’s complicated,” was all she would say about her current situation. She declined to give us her name.
We made our way over to the meeting.
The three of us stood outside the circle while I activated the voice recording on my phone and stepped through the outer ranks. As I did, a university-aged woman wearing a fashionable rain jacket noticed the glow from my phone and asked me what I was doing.
“I’m recording.”
“Are you a journalist?”
“Yes.”
“Who are you with?”
“The Dependent Magazine, here in Vancouver.”
With this, she turned her attention back to the speaker: a man who appeared to be in his mid thirties, talking about security and the need to protect the camp from the police and anyone trying to get in to take photographs. He outlined a strict no-alcohol policy.
I stepped into the open center of the circle and leaned against a pole which supported the tarp overhead.
A middle-aged woman with long, curly hair began to speak. I pointed the microphone at her.
She explained the ultimatum that had been issued to B.C. Housing to find permanent shelter for all the people in the camp. She said that she didn’t expect the demand would be met.
“We know they have spaces. We need to keep the pressure on,” she said. She then asked for suggestions from the group as to how to raise media awareness. Silence followed until a man behind me suggested they camp outside the B.C. Housing building. I turned and pointed the microphone to catch what he said.
Another man suggested a sit-in in their lobby.
A woman with a shock of curly, red hair chimed in: “I think it’s great that we’re finding places for people who want them, but what about the people who want to stay on the streets?” she asked.
The time on my recording registered just over eight minutes.
The meeting continued, bouncing between the group’s discussion on media awareness and strategy, and the woman with red hair who continued to raise the issue of people who wanted to live on the streets.
A young woman later identified as Harsha Walia interrupted:
“Wait a minute- is that guy recording?” she asked, stepping into the circle.
I said that I was.
“Did anyone say that you could?” she asked.
A number of similar questions arose from the crowd: ‘Who gave you permission?’, ‘Who are you?’, ‘Who are you with?’
Harsha walked up beside me. “Why are you recording?” she asked.
“I’m writing a story.”
“Did anyone give you permission?”
“No, I don’t need permission.”
She asked me to stop the recording, which I did.
“That’s unethical journalism,” someone called out.
“You’re having a public meeting in a public place and I’m recording it. There’s no expectation of privacy. You asked me to stop and I stopped, what’s unethical about that?”
“We’re trying to protect our anonymity,” a young woman called out.
“Delete it,” Harsha told me.
I refused.
Another young woman approached. She wore glasses and had her hair tied back in a ponytail. “Did you ask anyone’s permission to record this?”
“I don’t need anyone’s permission.”
People began to rise from their seats.
Harsha suggested we move outside the circle so that the meeting could continue.
“Who are you?” the second girl asked me as we walked.
“Matt Chambers. I’m a writer for The Dependent.” I handed her my business card. “Do you have a card?”
She said that she didn’t, and refused to give me her name.
“Let’s go talk to the legal observers,” I suggested.
“Why?” the second girl asked.
“Because I want to talk to them.”
“They have nothing to do with this,” she replied.
I stepped outside the camp entrance and onto the sidewalk. Harsha and the second girl were at either side of me. The bright orange shirts of the legal observers were nowhere to be seen. Half a dozen people lingered around us- a mixture of activists and neighbourhood residents.
Harsha stepped in front of me and once again demanded that I delete the recording.
I refused. She continued to insist.
As we talked a visibly intoxicated man approached us. He was thickly built, had his hair in a ponytail and carried a guitar on his back. He said something loud and unintelligible to me. The second girl addressed him by name, asking him to calm down.
“Delete it,” Harsha said.
I refused once again, angering the man. He said something that I couldn’t understand and then reached out to grab me. I took a step backwards and out of his reach.
“This guy’s gonna hurt me. You clearly know him, please ask him to leave.”
“Not until you delete it,” Harsha said.
The man began yelling at me again and waving his finger in my face. Fearing for my safety, I told them I would delete the recording. The second girl then stood between the man and I. Harsha stood within a foot of my person as I deleted the recording.
When I had finished, she told me to give her my phone.
I refused, and showed her the display. The last recording was an interview with Spencer Herbert, West End MLA, from around 3pm that day.
“Give it to me,” she repeated.
I refused once more, and the man began to yell again. He reached out to grab me. I stepped backwards.
“Let me see it,” Harsha said, following.
The man stepped towards me and Harsha took the phone from my hand. The drunk man then pushed me hard in the chest and I stumbled backwards. He pursued, yelling, as I moved behind a parking meter to put something between us. Harsha walked to the entrance of the camp with my phone.
The second girl ran forward and put herself between the man and I. She told him to leave.
I stood dumbfounded as they walked away.
Once the man had disappeared from sight before I approached the camp entrance where a new scuffle had broken out just inside. I spotted Harsha on the outskirts of the confrontation and asked for my phone back. She turned it over without a word.
The second girl approached me once more. “You’re unethical,” she told me, then walked away.
I checked the phone- all the voice memos had been deleted. Hours of work and personal notes.
We gathered our thoughts, mounted our bikes, and left with precisely the opposite story we had expected.
Hi Matt
I’m an ORN member and I saw the prime-time news piece this evening.
While I regret how this played out, and completely agree with you about the issue of journalistic ethics, I have to wonder if you weren’t a bit careless. Your write-up states that you knew you were walking into the tent city when everyone was tightly wound over concerns about undercover police among other things.
My comrades, who I don’t presume to speak for, were out of line, in my humble opinion.
BUT the way this played out would have been entirely predictable to me, and anyone who’s spent time around these sorts of actions. Our resources were stretched pretty thin, people were exhausted, and like I say, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you triggered some hostility in that environment.
Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this further, and I think we both know “ethical journalism” is why they jumped to put you on the prime-time news with this story.
This account is full of significant and serious inaccuracies and slanders. Firstly, I have, until recently, been at Tent City regularly and this person did not return to have a conversation or attempt to contact me to my knowledge. Second, I did not take this person’s phone. There was a request for him to leave the premises if he was recording and to delete the recordings. While there was disagreement with him and many people at first, he - of his own accord - had deleted the files and at no point was threatened by me as he is trying to insinuate. He turned over his phone to show the deleted files, at which point a few more files were found to still be on and then deleted. There is no doubt that this whole experience was unpleasant, especially for those who had to deal with his over-entitled novice journalism and anger. Yet there is no mention or responsibility for this journalists’ unethical practices in both creating and escalating the situation. For example, despite repeated requests to stop recording inside the Tent City, he continued to record for at least five minutes while going off on a angry (somewhat incoherent, possibly drunk, tirade) which really exasperated especially DTES residents who struggled to have their wishes respected. There was a huge banner on the front of the Tent City outlining media protocol and the need to respect the privacy of homeless people from whom Tent City is their home (no journalist can walk into anyone else’s backyard and just take pictures) and yet he falsely claims he had consent.Over the past two weeks, there have been no other incidents of a reporter conducting themselves so unprofessionally in violation of the outlined media protocol, and then not only attempting to shift the blame but outright lying for the sake of a sensationalist story. On a positive note, the Tent Village was an inspirational and community-building event with lots of good will and healthy spirit and thanks to all those who made this possible.
HW, if Mr. Chambers did indeed “continue… to record for at least five minutes while going off on a angry (somewhat incoherent, possibly drunk, tirade) “, it is unfortunate that the only evidence of this was either deleted by you personally, or at your request. You can understand why the general public might have a somewhat skeptical outlook on your version of events.
You might want to reread the piece, Harsha. At no point does Mr. Chambers “falsely” claim that he had consent. He merely states the practical, legal, and obvious fact that, as an individual on public land, he doesn’t NEED it.
And, if you want to talk about “overentitlement”, perhaps we can begin with your practice of deigning to outline Media Protocol on a piece of land you DON’T OWN.
I saw the news story tonight, and from the look of it, Mr. Chambers DID try to contact you. In fact, they SHOWED the emails on the broadcast.
I suppose there’s really no way to know for certain. At this point, it’s your word against his. But, to a casual observer, I’m inclined to believe him. And, while his actions may have been, at worst, careless, his case certainly seems thoughtfully outlined and soberly presented. Your response, on the other hand, appears to be nothing more than the same old inflammatory rhetoric.
If what happened here is indicative of the “community-building” going on at Tent City, then I think perhaps the entire city of Vancouver could do without being subjected to any further examples of your “good will”.
this story is completely preposterous. as a Tent Village volunteer, one of the primary jobs of all of us at the front gate was to constantly remind everyone - journalists and random passers-by - of the no-camera policy on site and the **no faces** policy outside (both of which this person has violated - surely every journalist knows you cannot photograph people without their explicit consent). most people were completely understanding, had no objection and voiced their awareness of issues of safety and respect that were at play in the dynamic of the DTES, and the precarious but strong community we had put together over the past days. however, the only trouble we did have was from entitled journalists, strolling about making grand claims about free society and “public” space and their right to do whatever they wanted regardless of the wishes of those whose stories they supposedly valued.
it is obvious that if Matt Chambers had his camera or recorder publicly visible upon entrance, one of the half-dozen people outside would have told him the media rules. If he had bothered to read the huge Community Agreements posted on the front gate, he himself could have figured it out. As someone who is personally familiar with all the individuals named and described above, the entire description of “assault” and above is clearly sensationalist and largely fabricated. Yet above all else, it is obvious if Matt Chambers had any commitment to ethical journalism whatsoever, he’d have better things to write about than going to mainstream media outlets to attempt to slander individuals and actions that have built community, housed those without homes, and brought together a diverse array of local efforts in strength and resistance. It is despicable that you open by placing yourself in this collective “war for a just and equal society”, and then produce this.
Seems this is a pretty pathetic attempt to get some attention and Global TV provided you with a platform in an attempt to slander people involved in Olympic Protests.
You got “permission” to record from “university-aged woman wearing a fashionable rain jacket” yet had no idea whether you had the consent of the people you decided to record. Without a doubt this is representative of bad practice for any journalist and I’m not surprised that requests were made to delete the data.
I hope you have sometime to actually figure out how to relate with communities and community spaces in your future attempts to report on communities you clearly know little about and that you are not a part of. If you had spent anytime in the downtown eastside and even visited one service provider you would have realized that sensitivity with regards to recording without consent in the neighborhood is extremely high and you completely disrespected those concerns.
I noticed that you didn’t mention on global how your received consent and you don’t even have the name of who provided consent for you to record. It’s really quite sad that you tried to make a story out of this and are basically exploiting the work and vulnerability of people in the neighborhood to try and get attention. A really sad example of journalism.
I am going to have to accept Mr. Chambers’ version of the events. It would appear that Ms. Walia chose to ignore Mr. Chambers’ attempts to get her side of the story until the story was picked up by the mainstream media. Also, Ms. Walia’s version lacks credibility for other reasons. Most striking is the lack of detail. The alleged tirade by Mr. Chambers is only described as such; no substance is provided by Ms. Walia. Also, there is no description of how exactly Mr. Chambers “escalated” the situation.
The notion that Mr. Chambers would have been able to continue recording for 5 minutes while being asked to stop by everyone around him, or that he would have voluntarily turned over his phone to a hostile person for its contents to be deleted stretch the imagination. Unfortunately, Ms. Walia’s version does not conform to common sense and is contradictory (Was Mr. Chambers drunk and angry or was he agreeable enough provide his phone to her for her to delete the recordings?).
Lastly, I believe those attacking Mr. Chambers should reflect upon their notions of responsible and ethical journalism. One does not need the consent of a person to photograph them, much less their explicit consent. For examples, see any nightly newscast ever broadcast. Furthermore, there is no allegation that Mr. Chambers was violating the dignity of the homeless. By all accounts, including Ms. Walia’s, he was recording the activists’ meeting. Lastly, it should be noted that some of the most important and hard-hitting journalism has been conducted under tense, even hostile circumstances. Would we describe the countless journalists who have risked their safety to cover dangerous situations or hostile groups careless or unethical? No. The search for the truth often requires a journalist to go under cover, to secretly record, and to confront people who do not necessarily want him or her there. It comes with the job and the public has often benefitted from such exactly that kind of courage and conviction. Of course, Mr. Chambers did not risk his life (hopefully) or even record secretly. By all accounts he recorded the meeting in full view of everyone. It seems clear to me that those opposed to Mr. Chambers’ methods have not considered their positions carefully. Despite their own belief in the righteousness of their cause, which is a noble one, they cannot believe that they should be immune to criticism or coverage in the way that all political groups are.
Gerald Q, he was not on public land. That site is private property that is being squatted and when it is being squatted the squatters are determining how the space operates. There were rules clearly highlighted on at the front door that were completely ignored.
And the next time he is at a protest and the police are having a scrum on public land I’d like to see him walk into the middle of that police scrum, start recording and then see how he is treated.
Or for that matter, if people are having a family picnic in a public park go there and sit in the middle of it, don’t tell them that you are recording and then let them know as you are leaving and see how you are treated. You all are on your way to being GREAT journalists working for a tabloid.
Matt - you should be embarrassed.
if you were really trying to write about undercover cops then wouldn’t you have enough sense to understand why people might be nervous about a strange man recording a meeting? seriously? do we have to explain this to you?
as people have mentioned above, as tent city volunteers we reminded people over and over and over again about the media policy. it was displayed on a big banner at the front. how could you miss it? why didn’t you ask if you could record the meeting? why was that so hard to do or think of?
you obviously are just looking for your 15 minutes of fame and future job prospects at some tabloid. your actions are slanderous and self-serving. and through all this you discredit anti-olympic protestors, put people’s safety at risk and disrespect a community.
and i echo Doug above, why don’t you try secretly recording the police, or a family pick nick and see how people react.
Matt, you should be embarrassed, and you are also a total loser.
I echo other commentators’ denunciation of Matt Chambers’ lack of respect for the rules that had been set up for the tent village by its residents. Mr. Chambers’ actions at the tent city, and his subsequent pathetic attempts at 15 minutes of fame, reflect blatant entitlement and willful ignorance. Obviously all aspects of the movement can and should be subject to critique, but what happened in this situation is that Mr. Chambers came into the home of an already extremely vulnerable group of folks and violated rules that were put in place specifically to ensure the residents’ safety. Now he acts all wounded because it turned out that the tent community had developed the very important capacity to enforce its own rules - without weapons or the use of violence. Why didn’t he ask for permission from the outset? Why didn’t he reflect on why those rules around media were in place and write about THAT? Matt, don’t use journalism as an excuse for entitled behavior. Tent village residents and organizers have risked safety on every level to get housing for homeless DTES residents and you are wasting everyone’s time with your whining because you couldn’t access (i.e. weren’t trusted with) their stories? Get a grip!
Doug:
“That site is private property that is being squatted and when it is being squatted the squatters are determining how the space operates.”
Yes, the site is private property. But squatting on it does not give the squatters any legal rights whatsoever to claim it as their own and make up rules. They were there illegally.
Just fighting attempts to silence journalists, eh? Funny how your coverage and the news report don’t include any mention of a police officer “smacking [you] around a bit for filming” the street celebrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZx1zIWHqoA
Not news-worthy? Is it just business as usual when the VPD does it? Or is that you, or Global, or both, prefer showcasing sensationalized stories that demonize anti-Olympic protesters?
Footage buried in a YouTube channel versus a segment on the TV news. I think your bias is showing.
Matt Chambers started a blog 3 months ago and now he’s a journalist? Give me a break. Behavior like his makes the work of all journalists more difficult. This whole story is an attempt for him to get his 15 minutes of fame, at the expense of everyone else.
Last thing: I didn’t go to any fancy journalism school, but I would assume that before beginning to record individuals at a meeting in order to use their statements for developing a story, any credible journalist would identify themselves as such to anyone who might be caught on tape and explain what they are doing, and for what purpose. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see you doing that anywhere in your write-up (hardly the same thing as answering the question from the woman in the “fashionable” jacket after she had to ask - it sounds as though you were recording many more people, unbeknownst to them). As I assume you would have noticed over the course of the Olympic Games, recognized journalists from media groups ranging from CanWest to Vancouver Media Co-op clearly identified themselves with press badges.
How does the method you described here further your aim of “cover[ing] reports of undercover police officers infiltrating and provoking the encampment”? Were you simply planning to engage in similar behaviour as undercover police officers and see what kind of response you provoked?
You might want to look over the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. Specifically
“Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story”
and the section “Minimize Harm”. The following in particular:
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects…
… Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity…”
If you are actually a journalist, I’d like to think that these are things you consider in your daily practice.
Matt, thank you for attempting to provide information on what so many of us had suspicions about - who is actually ‘living’ in the ‘Tent City’.
I took the opportunity to walk past the area the day after the ‘Tent City’ was set up and noticed that the same people that were protesting on Feb. 12 had pretty well all found a new drop-in-centre.
And once media reports arose of other journalists being refused information, it did provide flame to the fire, so to speak.
As for those ‘activists’ claiming that as they are squatting that they can in-turn implement their own rules that others need to abide by - I would check again. Squatting is illegal in Canada. Therefore you can make up all the rules you want, they don’t apply.
And as for people randomly taking pictures in the DTES, it seems you folks are a bit ‘two faced’ about this. You have zero problem packing a camera out to any event you see fit and recording the happenings (ie: “Legal Observers”) The streets are an open, public forum and permission is not required.
As of February 13, the ORN lost the respect of the general public. If others want to enact change in the DTES and open dialogue - I would strongly suggest you separate yourselves from them.
You wanted the media attention - well, you got what you wished for.
Congratulations Mr. Chambers, you’ve successfully provided an excellent learning piece for every aspiring journalist: how to lose journalistic integrity, violate community space, use ad hominem attacks for your own personal gain, lose respect from community organizers, and all the while-defend yourself like a petulant child.
You claim that you did not need permission to record the meeting. From what I gather, you did not believe you needed permission because the meeting was held in public. First of all, as Doug rightly mentioned, the meeting was *not* held on public land. Second of all, there is a significant difference between public meetings and shared spaces. Just because a meeting is announced publicly, does not mean that it is ethical to secretly record private conversations. Yes-there can be private conversations in a public meeting, particularly when there is an assumption that no media personnel are in attendance.
Secondly, YOU were not “cornered” by anyone. You made the decision to enter tent city, flagrantly violate the community agreement, and continue to secretly record a meeting. As far as I am concerned, you cornered them. The organizers present had every right to ensure that left the meeting and that you had deleted the recording.
Your 15 minutes of fame will end, and you will be remembered as the slanderous blogger who chose to fabricate a story based on a few shreds of truth. Based on several eye-witness accounts, it has become clear to me that Harsha did *not* take your phone away from you and delete your personal notes. She merely asked to *see* that you did in fact delete the recording from the meeting.
I applaud Harsha for her restraint and sincerely hope that you learn how to report with accuracy. Until then, stick with the blog.
Matt,
With all due respect, it seems to me that you acted with a certain amount of ignorance in this situation. The tent city was an attempt to temporarily reclaim a parcel of land from a deeply conservative and recalcitrant city. It was an intense environment, with very real and scary police presence, (which you would have known if you’d spent any time there or tried to build any actual relationships) that was decidedly risky for a number of the residents and organizers. You may not know - or care - but many of the organizers had and continue to face continual police surveillance and intimidation. Such is hardly new to residents of the DTES. Yet you stroll right in to the tent city, with seemingly no awareness or care about the security situation, and tape people with a sense of entitlement that I find shocking. If a group of policemen were standing around discussing their tactics would you so cavalierly stroll up to them and start recording? I doubt it - but of course you would never need to, because their side meets in tall buildings, on leather couches, behind locked doors.
If you wanted information there were very clear ways to get it. You could ask people for interviews. You could talk to the organizers, you could talk to whoever you wanted - provided you did it up front, and with permission, and respect.
The fact that you didn’t do this, and now have turned what should have been a story about homelessness into a solipsistic whine about yourself, speaks volumes about your journalistic integrity. Real journalists expose hard truths - like homelessness in a city of wealth - by using their privilege as a stepping stone to information, not a battering ram. Real journalists speak truth to power. They don’t just scream at the powerless.
Any J-school student knows that basic journalistic ethics call for a journalist to identify themselves before taking notes or recordings from interviewees.
It sounds from the way he tells the story like this… ‘journalist’… recorded many people without informing them that he was present acting as a journalist - despite clear, large notices up at the entrance indicating when and how media was welcome to access the space, daily media interviews scheduled at 2 pm, phone contacts for reaching interviewees, and many speakers willing to share with the media, at the appropriate time and with full informed consent.
Sneaking in to record people without clearly identifying yourself is dishonest and is poor journalism, particularly when the subjects of your journalism are vulnerable people.
This so-called reporter might want to be more circumspect in his broadcasting of his mediocre, ethically questionable journalistic practices, or he might find it difficult to be taken seriously in the future.
LOL.
So this bunch of trespassers criminally assault you, damage your equipment, erase your intellectual property and then from their overweaning fund of self-entitlement accuse you of violating the “rules” of their sordid little squat and not being a responsible journalist.
Nice to see that left fascism is alive and well in Vancouver.
The homeless have enough problems without being exploited and turned into a media circus by these turds
Great story Matt.
Matt, how did you miss the huge banner at the entrance to the Tent Village that explicitly stated that no recording was allowed on site? Or did you not miss it — did you in fact see it, and then choose to ignore it, out of a misguided sense of entitlement?
And once you’d managed to get yourself on site with your recorder, did it never occur to you that it was unprincipled to record an organising event to which you, as neither an activist or a resident, had not been invited without first identifying your presence? Or did that thought in fact occur to you — did you decide instead that infiltrating the meeting would make for a more interesting, more sellable story, however unethical, however antithetical to the principles of a “just and equal society” that you purport to hold dear, however sensationalist?
Or was that the point — where you in Tent City to write a critical, contextuised piece of journalism, or to get a colorful story to sell to the first outlet that would take you (hence “fashionable rain jacket” and “drinking orange liquor from a plastic bottle” — do your projections constitute fact?)?
This kind of whinging can hardly be called investigative journalism, however you might have sold it to Global TV for your thirty seconds of fame. You made no attempt to build connections with the Tent Village community before or after this encounter. You acted in flagrant and wilful violation of the rules of the space. You showed no awareness for how the precarious position of the Village was relative to security forces in the city, including VPD and CBSA. Rather than ask for interviews, you chose to intrude on an organising meeting and refused to leave when requested. You behaved as though you were worthy of their trust, but gave no reason to them to do so, and were then affronted when they, logically enough, made it clear that your presence was unwanted. This is the precisely the kind of smug, unselfcritical behaviour one would expect from any tourist wandering through the Downtown Eastside — someone in it for the thrill, not the truth.
To reiterate what so many others have already said, journalists worthy of the title do more than whine on national television.
Here’s how I see it.
Matt Chambers probably should have asked permission to record, and he probably should have seen the sign at the front. Probably should have done a lot of things. So he was a little irresponsible.
But he wasn’t hateful and malicious. They asked him to stop recording and delete it, which he did. Then they assaulted him.
Assault > Irresponsible.
Bottom line.
Given the way Matt’s being swarmed on the comments section of this website, it’s clear how reasonable these “activists” must have been in person.
Legally, he was just as entitled to record audio as the squatters were to even be there.
The Tent Village was a community and a home-space with clearly defined media and recording guidelines on a massive banner at the front entrance. It was also an embattled community that had faced infiltration by undercover police. Moreover, many of the residents of Tent Village were homeless people with mental health and addiction issues; maintaining a safe, secure, and respectful environment under such conditions is by no means a given. Mr. Chambers chose not only to ignore both the explicit media guidelines of the Tent Village but also to put his own interests ahead of the community (and home) into which he entered. Even by his own account, activists on site acted effectively to de-escalate a confrontation and protect him from the purportedly angry, drunk individual on site.
That he should choose to go on Global TV in order to highlight his own grievances and feelings of disrespect after flaunting the clearly defined guidelines of an embattled community of homeless people and activists reveals much more about his own ethics than of the people he’s attempting to smear.
What kind of “journalist” pisses off the people he supposedly wants to hear from and then constructs a story all about himself from the event?
Anyone else get the irony of someone squating on someone’s property and creating a bunch of “rules” calling someone else “entitled” as a pejorative?
And its funny that a group of people who think one can suspend the constitution by hanging up a banner are lecturing about “ethics”, not to mention rights and journalism.
HW says…”This account is full of significant and serious inaccuracies and slanders.”
I think the term your looking for is libel. It’s little wonder that you’re unable to grasp the fact that this gentleman had a legal right to record where he did. Stick to anarchy and leave the legal issues to the grown-ups.
The defense of Matt Chambers that seems to be coming up here is simply the claim that he didn’t break the law in recording without people’s permission or knowledge, though there doesn’t seem to be any question about the fact that he clearly violated any reasonable sense of journalistic integrity, and will likely have done damage, in the eyes of many, on the legitimacy of blog-based “independent journalism.” To that arguement, I just want to add that there is a fundamental difference between a public meeting and community meeting (which tend to be closed for people who are not part of the community).
The idea, which has been raised a couple times in this thread, that the Tent Village was made up primarily of activists, rather than residents of the Downtown Eastside, is preposterous (as well as a tired and played out slander tactic). As someone who spent more than a bit of time at the Tent Village, I can attest that it was peopled mostly by residents of the DTES, most of whom were homeless or underhoused. Of the homeless, more than 40 were fasttracked into BC housing units, and some are still living in the Tent Village.
While Matt and other scumbags like him might not have any respect for people or communities, that does not mean that he or any other hack with a voice recorder can wander into a community space and make assumptions about the rights of the press and their relationship to that community and space. It also does not mean that people who defend their own privacy and their community spaces have done anything wrong.
Based on the rather extensive amount of time I spent at the Tent Village, I can assure people of two things. First, not a single professional journalist voiced serious objection to the no cameras/recording policy that had been agreed upon by the community, (only a couple hacks just like Matt). And second, the story Matt has concocted, while based on real events, is hardly accurate and is a really shitty excuse for an attempt at journalism.
Grow up Matt, get a life.
I think the story is well written and thought provoking.
It is troubling when people who claim to be standing for civil rights and against state brutality and censorship engage in behaviour which mimics the most egregious and reactionary conduct of those they oppose. It is even more troubling when those people seek to justify their threats, violence, and intimidation with the selective use of progressive terms.
What happened to Matt Chambers was exceptionally unfair, rude, and only serves to diminish the protesters’ cause in the eyes of the public. The insistence of certain above posters in standing by those actions paints the group in an even more unflattering light: petty, self-righteous, intellectually dishonest, and bullying.
Bren,
What part of ‘factually innacurate’ dont you understand?
Also, community members and/or activists insisting that some random unacreditted so-called journalist erase a tape that was made without permission in an enclosed community space hardly “mimics the most egregious and reactionary conduct of those they oppose.” Really, who is being “petty, self-righteous [and]intellectually dishonest” here?
You say that “what happened to Matt Chambers was exceptionally unfair [and] rude.” Given that what Chambers said was a falsified report of events that evening and the reality of his own actions that day and since, I think he got what he had coming to him-i can deffinitely admit though, that it might have been a little bit “rude.”
If a little bit of rudeness led to Matt’s crying to the tv networks, well then I stick by my earlier comment: “grow up.”
kudos to mr. chambers and the dependent. great work.
The irony appears to be lost on those who seek to attack Mr. Chambers (who appear to solely consist of ORN members).
Harsha Walia, and her wing of the ORN, have expressed open support for the Black Block tactics, which resulted in broken windows at The Bay in downtown Vancouver. Furthermore, they have set up Tent City on private property. Right or wrong, squatting is illegal in British Columbia.
The merits of civil disobedience aside, how can a group that so wholeheartedly supports and engages in the violation of British Columbian and Canadian law claim such offence at the notion that anyone, including a journalist, would not subject themselves to the manufactured “rules” of Tent City? Surely they understand that people are not subject to the law as the ORN wishes it to be. To suggest that all persons be subject to a banner hung at the entrance of illegally occupied land is absurd.
Furthermore, let us all acknowledge, regardless of their merit, the spirit of the Tent City “rules” was not violated. Mr. Chambers, by all accounts, including Ms. Walia’s, only recorded ORN personnel and did so openly. He did not sneak into Tent City, he did not violate the dignity of the homeless and downtrodden resident at Tent City, he did not attempt to hide his purpose, and he stopped recording when requested to. The ORN is a highly visible, political organization. The fact that they are now using the poor souls of the DTES as proverbial human shields speaks volumes. It is yet another example of the ORN exploiting, for their own political aims, the very people they purport to represent.
You guys have shown your true colours. An apology would have been more appropriate than this ridiculous and telling attack on an independent journalist. Shame on you.
The tent city was not organized by ORN, it was endorsed by over a hundred organizations.
INCLUDING:
Carnegie Community Action Project, DTES Elders Council, Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, Impact on Communities Coalition, Streams of Justice, Vancouver Action, Walk 4 Justice, Community Advocates for Little Mountain, Citywide Housing Coalition, Anti Poverty Committee, DTES Community Arts Network, Indigenous Action Movement, Association of Chinese Canadians for Equality and Solidarity Society, Solidarity Notes Labour Choir, No One Is Illegal – Vancouver, Food Not Bombs, Vancouver Status of Women, Downtown Eastside Residents Association, Indigenous Environmental Network, Organizing Centre for Social and Economic Justice, Bus Riders Union, Alliance for People’s Health, Women Elders in Action, Canadian Union of Postal Workers – National Representative, UBC Students for a Democratic Society, East Van Abolitionists, Gatewaysucks.org, Justice for Girls, W2 Community Media Arts Society, Submedia, Vancouver Catholic Worker, Pivot Legal Society, UBC Centre for Race, Autobiography, Gender, Siraat Collective, The Rational Coop-Radio, Bulland Awaaz- Coop-Radio, Pink Resistance, CIPO –Vancouver (Popular Council of Indigenous Nations of Oaxaca in Vancouver), Rhizome Cafe, Native Youth Movement, Network of Sri Lankan Law Students, Oxfam Canada, Whistler Watch, no2010.com, Warrior Publications, Workless Party, Teaching Support Staff Union, 2010 Welcoming Committee, Latin America Connexions Collective, Servants Vancouver, Building Bridges Human Rights-Vancouver, Check Your Head, SFU Interfaith Institute for Justice, Peace and Social Movements, Stopwar.ca, Headlines Theatre, Student Christian Movement-UBC, Community Olympics Watch, Rain Zine, Industrial Workers of the World, The Press Release Collective, Simon Fraser University Public Interest Research Group, 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay, Friends of Women in the Middle East Society, Iran Solidarity-Vancouver, Federation of Iranian Refugees, Wake Up With Co-Op! at CFRO, UBC Colour Connected Against Racism, BC Persons with AIDS Society, Progressive Forum of Nepalis in America, Grassroots Women, Grandview Woodland Food Connection, Ethical Environmental Consulting, Purple Thistle, Bridgeview Community Action Group, Ahavat Olam Synagogue, The Under One Umbrella Society, Bridgeview Community Action Group, Neworld Theatre, St. James’ Social Justice Group, West End Residents Association, Fraser Valley Peace Council, Homes not Highways, Jacob’s Well, Faithful Public Witness Committee of Van-Burrard Presbytery of the United Church, Longhouse Council of Native Ministry, Gallery Gachet, Social Justice Committee of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver, Village Vancouver.
Before you comment, do your research.
Physical assault and lying about it withstanding, can someone please answer why the Legacy Media still persists in asking Harsha Walia to officially comment on any cause she claims to represent? It’s screamingly clear, even according to a few who know her and have decided to post their opinions here, that she’s horribly unqualified to act as an authority on just about any cause one might imagine. Most importantly, she gives some of the worst interviews I’ve ever watched in my life. Is she simply the loudest voice in the angry bunch? What is the point of her? Why should I care about anything she says? I’d love to know.
Thanks.
NE, so basically it was endorsed by the same twenty or so people with the $300.00 MEC tents…er, so what?
“an enclosed community space” aka a trespass.
What Matt did, without intending to, was expose the left fascist goons who were exploiting the homeless for the sake of raising their personal media profile. Now these little fascists are trying to rewrite history, hide their criminal behaviour and pretend that the media rather than themselves have engaged in criminal acts.
But the comments here are wonderful. Rarely do we see the group think and the essential fascism of the hard Left in such stark relief.
I would like to hear far more about ORN and the antics of Ms. Walia. There is certainly a story here and let’s hope The Dependent keeps digging.
I remember when Andrew Struthers, an ‘independent journalist’, interviewed a squatter at the Woodwards Squat in 2002. He did it with permission, but - because they were talking - the squatter told him some things about her family, asked him to keep it out of the story. He wrote it into the story. He also talked about drugs and street life inaccurately and disrespectfully. Andrew Struthers was banned from the squat, There was graffiti of him put up on the walls around the building. His impact on the community action, the neighbourhood, and the people who he met as an outsider… was negative.
In my opinion, as someone who lives blocks from the tent city site and knows the hood, being an “independent journalist” in the DTES carries responsibilities.
Even Sun reporters know that you have to be careful with the power you wield as a journalist, that many stories of many people downtown are private. Even G&M reporters know spaces created by homeless people, lived in by homeless people, become safe spaces pretty quickly. Even though they’re not *legally* private, these spaces function as private on a personal, human level. When outsiders cross into these spaces, they should - morally, as human beings with a sense of human responsibility - recognize that they are in other peoples’ private spaces.
It’s clear to me that Matt did not feel this responsibility. He should apologize. As is, I think his journalistic ‘career’ in the DTES is done. I bet cops won’t even talk to him.
The tent city was not organized by ORN, it was endorsed by over a hundred organizations.
****************
Yet, the one group that actually holds any merit - The Salvation Army, questioned the ‘political’ agenda of the Tent City as at that time, they stated the shelters were not at capacity.
It was/is nothing more that a political ploy and as the ‘groups’ associated have refused to confirm - via an independent media source who is actually living there - the rest of us can surmise you have something to hide. I stand by my earlier post - this is nothing more than a drop in for the protesters and supposed activists. Or, was the FN group that traveled here from Ontario to participate in the Feb. 12 protest just passing through? That would be the same group involved in the Caledonia stand-off. I saw their flags in the lot.
It was laughable when Gordon Hill stood in front of the media cameras after the Blac Block went on their destructive rampage. He went on about ‘…how buildings have no feelings’ and continued along that pathway of mindless dribble. My first thought was he was stoned or drunk…..but it seems to play to the mentality that many in the DTES harbor - that it is only property crime, therefore no one gets hurt. It is that same mentality that addicts use to justify robbing people to feed their habit. What you and your ilk do not seem to grasp - is it costs each taxpayer money.
What you are managing to successfully accomplish, is creating an ‘Us’ vs ‘Them’ mentality. The DTES is part of Vancouver, it is not ’special’ and does not hold ’special consideration’. You can preach to the residents in the area that they are, but it does not make it true. You are setting them up for a fall.
As someone who claims to be a journalist, Matt is completely out of line. It’s totally disrespectful to bring in a recorder, and then start taping without asking permission. Any person whose done any ethical journalism knows that you should ask before starting to record.
The sign at the entrance of tent city clearly said that journalists could not take photos and should contact specific people around media requests.
I think the Tent Village has been an effective and sorely needed undertaking. However, I must admit that I find the activists’ behaviour as described above troubling. It seems as though the facts as laid out in the story are disputed by the activists involved - but as they have decided only to level an allegation that the story is factually inaccurate without any detailed, coherent or convincing rebuttal, I am forced to accept the authors version of events. I personally did not support the Olypmics, but rather supported and sympathized with the mobilization against them. However, in the last few weeks I have seen a pattern of behaviour by some of the activist involved in the resistence with respect to people with dissenting opinions: (1) this incident, which sure seems to have included the threat of violence against a journalist (I do not accept that the author breached any journalist ethics from what I have read); (2) multiple accounts (including from other activists) of intimidation of onlookers at the Heart Attack March; (3) a comment by an audience member at the W2 “diversity of tactics” debate describing how protesters at the heart attack march harassed him over the use of his camera to document the protest as an independent photo-journalist; (4) the assualt (by pieing) of David Eby over his public comment on the black bloc tactic; (5) the shouting down and general hostility of the crowd towards those at the aforementioned W2 debate who disagreed with the black bloc tactics; and (6) the cheering by the crowd at the press conference where David Eby was assualted of the idea of arson and the kidnapping corporate executives. I have subsequently heard many activists defend each of these instances. I think the activists who have engaged in and defended this type of behaviour need to consider more thoroughly the impact of this behaviour on the potential for converting those with different points of view in the interests of forming a broader mass movement. I hope these comments are taken constructively, as they are intended, and not just met with an attack on me.
I can’t even begin to express my amusement over the beliefs and behaviours of Ms. Walia and some of the commentors on this site. Just to make this clear, their point is that once squatter sets up an illegal squat they can dictate the rules that will be applied within that squat? Or to put it bluntly THEY don’t have to follow the rules of society but they require that society obey their rules? If you are going to act like an anarchist then don’t whine when people behave like anarchists around you.
As a mental exercise let’s take Ms. Walia’s example to an absurd extreme. Under her logic, I could set up a squat in her parent’s home and as long as I put up a sign on the front door I can set the conditions for how her parent’s must behave in their home?
If their logic weren’t so inherently contradictory I might believe they actually mean what they are saying.
Imagine the same story, except replace Matt with Harsha Walia, and replace the ORN meeting with a HPS (Homeless People are Scum) meeting.
I invite every person who objects to Matt’s actions to resubmit your replies.
Censorship is not a two tiered system, and it’s application should not be governed by your own personal beliefs.
I am the ‘other girl’ in this story.
Firstly, I never saw three people. Matt was, the entire time he was under my observation, there alone. In the GlobalTV interview I believe he is using the ‘Royal We’ as opposed to actually being with other people. In his written account, his friends, if they were there did not come to his side during this dispute.
The event he was recording was a private meeting, not an open discussion or a general assembly in the camp. It is a demonstration of his lack of ethics that in lieu of an actual recording of this meeting, he just types out his memory of it giving detailed description of the people and what they say. (Though, given the ‘creative license’ he has given the rest of his account, I wouldn’t bet money on it’s accuracy). He did not have permission to be there as a reporter , did not have permission to record it or publish it, and most certainly did not have permission to transcribe his account of the meeting and post it on line. In fact, he was explicitly and directly asked not to do any of those things.
He did not ask me for my card, and he never suggested going to talk to the legal observers. We walked in the direction of the exit because I was escorting him out of the camp for disrespecting camp media policies and refusing to delete his recording upon request. During this walk, I attempted to appeal to his sense of journalistic integrity by explaining to him the it was unethical to record people without their consent. He apparently disagrees and believes that the fact that he has a full colour business card and a column on some obscure blogger site, that he has an inalienable right to go anywhere, anytime, and document anything he wants –despite negative impacts his actions have on the people and situation he is documenting.
He never said, “This guy’s gonna hurt me. You clearly know him, please ask him to leave.” Thus any ensuing statements he claims were made afterwards are false –because that never happened.
He was not coerced out of his recorder. He handed it over after lengthy argument. First he showed it to me, to demonstrate that he had erased the file. But given that he had been so cagey up to this point, I didn’t believe him at his word. I needed to look at it closer. He gave it to me to look at, but I couldn’t make head nor tails out of the thing and gave it to someone to go find someone who knew how to work it and verify that the files were in fact deleted. I could not do this myself, as I was still engaged in mediating this dispute between Matt Chambers and another person from the camp, (the second man Chambers refers to in his account) which had become quite heated.
I thought, by the look on Chambers’ face, that he had finally been convinced of the error of his ways by how upset he was making people at the camp. But I guess that wasn’t a look of self recognized guilt and remorse, it was look of an arrogant fool afraid of the consequences of his own stupidity.
I never told the second man to leave. I was mediating the dispute, and to me, given the gravity of the situation, it was a difficult and emotionally charged argument, but it was not uncalled for, and Matt Chambers was never in any physical danger.
Chambers had his phone returned to him, he was outside the gate, thus my involvement with this situation ended. He heckled me, yelling, “You’re the one who’s unethical.” To which I responded, “You never even thought of ethics until I mentioned it.”
I observed him a few minutes later talking at length to the legal observers. At which time I knew this guy was going to be so petty as to make a big deal out of this situation, which unfortunately seems to have been a correct assessment.
Vancouver has the potential to be an incredible city, and we DO need good people to voice the desperate needs of our homeless citizens. To those who do this with balance and understanding; thank you. You work so hard, and are greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately, I find the tone of most of these comments against Mr. Chambers unsettling. Many seem over emotional, hateful, and are full of name calling and sarcasm. After reading the article, and these posts, they are what makes me believe that Matt Chambers was indeed bullied, and treated unfairly. It is unfortunate this happened. For the sake of a great cause, please try and find balance, and see both sides. We are all in this together.
As someone who spent a bit of time doing support work at the tent city, I find this story outrageous and disrespectful. You entered the tent city site, completely ignored the huge sign that listed the media protocol, entered an area where people are eating, sleeping, and socializing, and taped people without their permission. Your lack of respect for people’s privacy, and the media protocol set out by the tent city is the problem here. As well, you totally ignore the excellent and inspiring work done by Harsha and many others - work that resulted in people actually getting housing.
And, “the other girl” your name is?
“It is a demonstration of his lack of ethics that in lieu of an actual recording of this meeting, he just types out his memory of it giving detailed description of the people and what they say.”
—
This is ridiculous, “other girl.”
You folks bully Matt into deleting his recording, then chastise him for not having a recording when he writes his story. What is he supposed to do exactly? Just pretend the whole thing never happened, or write from memory? If you had been wronged at some government function, I’m pretty sure I know which one you’d choose.
I agree with those who say the squatters had no right to try and establish media protocol for an area they had no right to be in. Just because some clueless reporters might have caved in to your demands, as though they meant something, doesn’t mean they had to.
Much of the great journalism that is done year after year happens because a journalist doesn’t wave a sign around identifying himself. As this situation shows, that is often the quickest way to lose access. Again, I’m sure if some ORN member went undercover at a government event and got a damaging recording the last thing activists would be complaining about would be ethics.
As for Ms. Walia, anyone who witnessed the Laibar Singh debacle knows she’s not to be taken seriously. Half-truths and outright lies appear unavoidable for her. It appears “other girl” is well on her way to following in Harsha’s footsteps, with her own description of the event that not only contradicts Matt’s version, but Ms. Walia’s.