Editorial

Last week in Ohio a photojournalist, Alex Kotran, was covering a story of two cows that had escaped from the agriculture school as university police were trying to manage the animals. Kotran was asked by a police officer to leave because the situation was dangerous. He relocated and was then asked by another police officer to leave. Kotran complied immediately with the police officers request. He was then handcuffed, arrested, detained and they searched his pockets. Kortan did not present any press identification. While, University police insist Kortan was not arrested and no charges have been filed and his alleged detention is still in question.

It is understandable to ask any bystanders to give the university police more room with cows since the cows could bolt and trample someone. But detaining Kortan and putting him in handcuffs is going a little overboard. Someone could say it was unlawful detainment and search.

Sure, Kotran wasn’t free of fault. He had no proof he was a photojournalist. None the less, anyone can claim to be a civilian photographer because of our technology. Anyone can take pictures and put it on the internet with ease. The vision of the press has changed.

Now, the question is how far do we let police go? Do we let them keep leaning on the excuse it’s too dangerous? Do we allow police to say, "Well, their's a school board meeting tonight but it might be dangerous so you can't go." If the police did need to get people moved what can they do? What are the standards? It’s the same with the photojournalists: when is it time for them to give police space?

There needs to be a standard for both parties. The police need rules of how strict to be with the press and the press needs rules of when they need to give the police room to work. The press can be a distraction to the police but the press can help the police spread the news of a crime. There needs to be a compromise of sorts.

Information on Article