Viewers Respond To Question Asked By Portland's CBS Affiliate
At Its Online Forum - "What's Your Opinion? Thoughts On Portland Media
And Breaking News" - In Wake Of Warrantless Break-In By Marijuana Task Force
That Left One Killed, Three Wounded

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Join our discussion:

How do you think the local media covers breaking news?

***

Thoughts on Portland Media and Breaking News?

As tragedies unfold, the media is strained to report the news quickly and accurately.
All the while, they also do everything possible to maintain the standards of
journalism. Now that the fatal police shooting is no longer breaking news, we invite
you to share your opinion: how did the media do? Was too much reported? Not
enough? What about helicopters? What are your thoughts?

Allan Schwindt - 06:41am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#1 of 119)

It's interesting how we are told so often how the crime rate is going down and the
shootings and other major crimes happen almost daily. We also learned a few days
ago that the prison population has steadily increased over the past x years. Doesn't
it make you wonder who is telling us the truth. Come to think of it, it was Bill
Clinton who first crowed about the crime rate going down. This was, of course one
of his attempts to convince the public that he's doing such a wonderful job.

In any case, I sure hope the crime rate doesn't go up again.

Kathleen McCullough - 06:42am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#2 of 119)

I appreciate the accurate coverage of breaking stories, esp. when it involves our
police dept., however our "right to know" must be placed second to the officer's
safety. I personally would rather know what's going on after the fact if it means that
our police are in danger because of media coverage. I'm not refering to "overkill" of
a news event, but some of the video I saw today was clearly a give-a-way of the
SWAT team's movements and placement. The safety of our police must be
paramount to the public's right to know.

Roger P. - 06:42am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#3 of 119)

As I surfed KOIN and KGW during the Jan 27 Police Shoot Out, I was shocked
that KOIN was showing pictures from the Helicopter, using the zoom lenses, of the
police SRT vehicle drivig to the front door of the suspected house, also showing the
movement of SRT members. The Police Bureau called for a ban on airspace for a
reason.

I could not believe when "Cliff" from the Police dept was asking Shirley to not
show the shots from the helicopter, and she only argued with him that other
channels had their helicopters in the air. He was surely asking for a reason, not to
argue!

I believe that KOIN used bad taste in their reporting of this incident! And all
channels used bad taste in showing over and over the scene of the suspect's naked
lower body! Then the question of why he was naked, is a "no brainer" in
determining the kind of search is done on a cop killer....

Just my opinion....

Frederick Ray - 06:43am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#4 of 119)

Dear KOIN: The News Media needs to understand that their story is NOT more
important than the actions of the police. Do not show officers live on camera when
they are trying to capture or find a suspect. This only gives the suspect(s)
information about what they cannot see from where they are at. Again your story is
not as important as what the police are doing to capture suspects.

Sincerely,

Frederick Ray

Nancy David - 06:43am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#5 of 119)

I think that Moose is right in asking News crews to leave or not brodcast certain
events, It can have grave consequences. Though as a news vewier and a member
of the community, I have the need to know what is going on in the world around
me. I also am well aware of the "slow-down-and-see-the -carwreck" kind of
mentality that draw individuals to stay tuned to every minute detail as it happens.
What you have to ask your self is this, "What if it was some one in my family" as
the news stations need to ask, "What if our live scene brodcasts could have caused
6 more Officers their lifes" It is News, but it needs to be handled with more care. I
pray for the Woman who lost he life today, it takes a special person to put their
lives on the line every day , for a society that usualy doesn't care. Nancy David 18
yrs old

Jeff Murphy - 06:44am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#6 of 119)

Your coverage may be considered important by Portland residents. Personally, I
would rather see a rerun of JAG.

Darrel J. Ayler - 06:45am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#7 of 119)

I think that the media put their concerns about ratings ahead of everything else
including saying too much about the slain officers precinct and husband being a
police officer and other little tidbits that any one that knew her could figure out.

Dave Fredrick - 06:45am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#8 of 119)

I think it is unfortunate about the shootings today. I do completly agree with the
firearms expert, criminals will always have guns. Someone please tell the house
that. I guess its true it only takes one bad apple.

(111 following messages)

(8 previous messages)

Tammy Otto - 06:47am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#9 of 119)

I feel that koin tv did for the most part an excellent job on the reporting of our city's
and state's newest tragedy. However, I do feel that when Cliff Madison from the
Portland Police asked for no more live shots to be taken of the crime scene and its
surroundings as well as previously recorded video he was obviously ignored by koin
and probably the other station's . I however am not sure of what station's they were
due to being a loyal koin watcher. Also, I alway's comment on your excellence but
tonight your anchor Shirley Hancock kept reporting the female officer many times
still in the OR and that your reporter @ the hospital as well as the public relations
spokesperson stated many times that she was out of the OR and in intensive care. I
know that Shirley had been reporting/ anchoring all day and that she was probably
like I incredibly saddened but I feel that this was a big error and she should have
been corrected. Shirley, In my oppinon is a great anchor just did a human error like
anyone of us can. I do however commend Warren Pettre he did an excellent job on
obeying the officer's request to move away from the scene. I can understand the
chief of police's attitude's toward the media and helicopter's effect on the situation.
the media in portland had way to many helicopter's in the air. I also agree with the
Mayor, Police Chief and your reporter David Schmidtke that there needs to be
tougher gun control and why should we allow these assualt type weapons in our
neighborhoods and our country. I hope that our people in our community's and
state force our local,state and country's leader's to improve gun control and prohibt
the sale and use of assault weapon's. We need to support our police and protect
them as well as they do us. By pulling together and forcing our leaders to provide
gun control and the prohibiting of these assualt weapons. I would do anything I
could to help with that process if anyone needs and want's my help. I'm sick of
hearing of the loss of our police hero's both in death and injury as well as the police
department's continued grief. The death of Thomas Jefferies still grieves me as well
as this latest death of another one of our hero's. We as community have to say
enough is enough and work together to improve our streets, neighborhood's, and
the protection of our people and importantly our police. We should not have to
endure this tragedy and heart breaking loss again in the future to come.

Thank you, Tammy Otto kotto@spiretech.com PO Box 1201 Gresham, Oregon
97030

Don Clarke - 06:49am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#10 of 119)

Since Oregon is not a police state... For better or worse, this is the start of the
information age. PPD... Get used to it.

Long drawn out reporting on a long drawn out process. Something about free
speech/free press you know. Helo, radio, typewriter, telephone; just another tool to
be used or abused. You did ok.

The one issue that I didn't see addressed was:

Did the PPD enter the home legally?

D. Clarke

Mark Jensen - 06:50am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#11 of 119)

I haven't written to your station before because I really haven't felt very strong
about some of the issues being reported. I do, however, feel very strongly about the
media's coverage of the police shooting here in Portland this afternoon. I feel that it
was VERY irresponsible of the local TV channels to insist on continuing their
helicopter coverage to the detriment of the men and women officers on the ground;
compromising not only their safety but their tactical efforts as well. Chief Moose's
request (multiple!) to the stations to get their 'copters away from the scene should
have been honored immediately and without hesitation once the dangers to the
officers on the scene was explained! How can/do the stations justify keeping the
helicopters in the air in face of such a request? I don't understand. Is it an
overblown journalistic sense of a public's right to know? Or does it simply boil
down to ratings and competative one upsmanship among the stations to feed an
assumed increasingly voracious public appetite for the sensational and macabre.
When does the notion of providing a public service step over into the realm of
reckless endangerment? Do station managers know where the line is drawn
anymore? Do they even know how to draw a line?!?

J R - 06:51am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#12 of 119)

First, as a fellow police officer in Oregon, I grieve deeply with the loss of the PPB
officer, and for the others injured in the shooting on 1-27-98. I do not, however,
like the way that the media showed responding officers at their tactical locations
throughout the coverage of the incident. Even though your helicopter may not have
been flying directly overhead of the suspects residence, using the "zoom" lens to
show footage of the home is gross negligence. The suspect may very well have
been watching your news, and quite possibly could have used your information to
his advantage. I think the media is fairly lucky not to have contributed to the death
or injury to officers/fire/medical personnel by the suspect utilizing "live" information
to prolong or escalate this or other situations. I do believe that the media can be
helpful in many cases, but do not risk other police officers/fire/medical
professionals to "get the story".

C Henderson - 06:52am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#13 of 119)

As a retired police dispatcher I have experience with what the media calls breaking
news. I think what Chief Moose said today was true. Not of KOIN but of another
station. They showed SWAT members and their vehicles; they showed the suspect
being transported; they were exceptionally intrusive overall. The danger to the
officers comes when news is more important than safety. These situations should
be treated as they are in the military. Need to know at the time only. The public has
the right to know some things but not all. The time to advise the public, indepth, is
after it is over. I feel a bulletin at the time the incident starts is enough then, when it
is over, give the information the police department gives you. This is the way it is
done in Eastern Oregon and Washington and the police benefit greatly from this
practice. Suspects rights and the rights of the police are protected. The conviction
rate of the suspects would be much better if thought is given before media blitzes of
incident and capture are shown. You jeopordize the ability of the suspect to a fair
trial and the prosecution's ability to present a winning case. Think about it,won't
you?

(106 following messages)

(13 previous messages)

Colin Veach - 06:52am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#14 of 119)

You overdid it, just like you overdo everything. When your BIG stories break I go
watch some other channel, any other channel.

Once I have heard that something has happened I do not need that story to be
thrown at me continually for the next six to eight hours.

The Police had to set up a special airspace zone just to keep you news people and
your helicopters out of the area. Does that tell you something? It should.

In almost every big story you are continually in the way bothering peole who have a
job to do. Would you like to have several people waundering through your
newsroom during a broadcast?

George Hill - 06:52am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#15 of 119)

I believe that the media's job is to report the news, ie: the facts. Yesterday's
coverage of the crisis in SE Portland was an example of journalism at its worst. The
news anchors, and particularly Mike Donahue, presented their own suppositions as
facts. Mike expressly said that the people in the house were wearing gas masks, you
reported as confirmed tear gas being used, Mike stated that the people in the house
were survivalists. Many times it was stated that there was an arsenal of weapons in
the house (you don't know that, you were just passing on rumors)

It seems to me that if you don't have any facts to report, then you should not make
up things to fill in the time.

I was offended by your helicopter coverage of the swat teams in action, as I'm sure
were the people who were exposed by your videos. We are lucky that the bad guy
did not take advantage of the pictures you were showing to do more damage.

I suggest that KOIN TV put someone in charge of these breaking newscasts who
has the maturity to make the right decisions on what is broadcast on our airwaves.

SHERRON NAUMAN - 06:53am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#16 of 119)

Knowing KOIN TV's commitment to excellence, we were dissapointed to see you
biting into the hoop-la. Hourly announcements would have kept us informed
without endangering the ongoing operation. Also, next time,and unfortunetly we all
know there will be a next time, get that helicopter out of the air, and please help
these guys do a very difficult job. Thanks for reporting all news with compassion
and especially with accuretness and fairness.

Dick Coughlin - 06:53am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#17 of 119)

KOIN My name is Dick Coughlin from Saginaw Michigan. I watch KOIN on my
dish. I just wanted to express my sympathy to the officers and the family of those
who were shot yesterday. It reminded me of a few years ago when 2 of our Bay
City officers were shot dead in an ambushy by 2 people and I use the word people
with reserve. Dick Coughlin

Brent Kellogg - 06:54am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#18 of 119)
Y&R NewsNet - The Genoa City News

I think the media did a terrible job. How long was KOIN on the air live showing us
the same old recorded video of someone standing around an ambulance? 4.5 hours
of nothing was a bit much considering that most viewers were working at the time.

If new developments had come in once it was clear nothing was happening after the
initial event, KOIN could have broken into regular programming.

Rather than rehashing the event to death, KOIN could have crawled what was
known at the bottom of the screen.

Gary Donnelly - 06:54am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#19 of 119)

The real tragedy here is that those sworn to protect us are falling and we seem
unwilling to take appropriate action to stop it. While I believe in our "freedoms" -- I
also agree with Mayor Katz that it's time to take a long look at the weapons in our
city. Finally, if, as Chief Moose says, the media hampers police efforts with their
helicopters, then they (the media) should re-examine their roles in the community.
If the helicopters are hampering police activities then I am disappointed in the
stations involved. I appreciate the coverage the helicopters provide.. But I do NOT
condone anything that puts a police officer in harm's way.

Mary Cunningham - 06:55am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#20 of 119)

Does the media think that the bad guys don't watch TV? Yes the public has a right
to know, but do we need to know so much at the moment?

News Station's do you really need the bigger rating at the expence of another
officer's life?

Think about it.

Mike Utley - 06:55am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#21 of 119)

I didn't see the breaking story on TV, but I heard it on the radio. I heard enough to
know that 3 police officers paid one hell of a price for their jobs. I wish some
people would wake up and realize that some other people are never going follow
the rules. It's time to give the police the latitude and firepower to win this war that
seems to be growing in the cities around us. They can't win when we send them out
to hunt bears with a switch!

Ron Baugher - 08:17am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#22 of 119)

I notice the first sentence of your heading states accuracy in presenting the news. I
watched your coverage and accuracy did not come into the equation concerning the
reporters viewpoints on weapons. The problem with these reporters stating
falsehoods on the air is that people that are ignorant about firearms are taking these
opinions as gospel. I heard it stated that the AK-47 is a larger caliber weapon, well
it is 7.62x39 or approximately 31 caliber so that makes almost all pistol rounds
larger than the AK-47. Also it was stated that they are useless as hunting weapons,
that would be a shock to the thousands of people who do hunt with these rounds
across the country. I am not here to debate gun control just to ask that reporters act
responsibly when reporting and not throw in supposition in place of facts. There are
too many people who listen to newscasts who know nothing of firearms who are
today walking around with a false knowledge because they heard the kind of false
statements that were present in your newscast during this tradegy. I commend you
on the job you did covering this on the other content. Thank you

(97 following messages)

(22 previous messages)

David Blommendahl - 08:17am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#23 of 119)

I believe the media, especially in the 1990s, suffers from a state of narcisism. Self
promotion has been taken to new heights. The most serious events are exploited for
ratings. The recent "helicopter wars" are but a symptom of this rather banal orgy of
ratings competition. When that competition endangers an ongoingpolice operation,
the media has lost its moral authority. While KOIN tends to be the most
professional of the local media outlets, it can't seem to resist the insatiable desire to
fly its helicopter into a situation despite the potential consequences. The post-event
rationalized explanation that "our helicopter cleared out of the airspoace above the
incident" rang hollow and insulted the intelligence of your viewers.

Eric Bush - 08:42am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#24 of 119)

Media coverage has cost the lives of police officers trying to do their job. Too
many in the media fell "their job" is to be first no matter what. It was obvious that
the media was using camera technology that the PPB was not familiar with that
allowed them to violate the tactical scene from the distances the PPB asked their
aircraft to stand off at. Rather than work with the PPB on the intent of their and
the mayor's request the media continued to video tape LIVE tactical movements
and police operations. This gave the suspect a signifcant advantage and placed
many police officers lives in danger. There is no excuse for the over zealous
activities of the media. I am personally familiar with incidents in which the media
behaved in much this same manner, and a police officer was killed as a result.

Lorie White - 08:43am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#25 of 119)

I feel that the media went too far yesterday. Leave the police to do their job. Yes,
you are to report the news accurately. But that could have been acheived by not
having the continuous broadcast of reporters passing the mic trying to fill air space.
Sure have someone there for breaking news, but the constant was way over line.
And besides it hindered the police in their more important work. Back off! Don't be
so zealot.

Brooke Hutchison - 08:43am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#26 of 119)

First of all, I would like to say, when is the media going to get a clue and quit
interferring in cases like the shooting yesterday? It appears that the only
important thing they think about is how much coverage, who was there first, etc.
How about the lives of people? I think that every station who was flying a
helicopter yesterday was at fault. I found it amazing when I watched the evening
news last night that each station was denying that their helicopters were in the area
where they weren't supposed to be and pointing fingers at the other stations.

You are all guilty! This was such a serious situation and you all ignored it. If it
were any of us citizens hampering with the scene of the crime, you can bet that we
would be fined and/or would get in trouble for it. So why not do the same to all the
stations who IGNORED the request of the Portland Police Bureau's many, many
request to get the heck out of there?

I enjoy watching the news daily and hearing about what is going on whether it be
positive or negative - it all has an effect on my life. But when something like this
happens, it disappoints me tremendously and I guess I will go back to watching the
half-hour sitcoms that do me no good what-so-ever!

My thoughts and prayers go out to Mrs. Waibels family as well as Mrs. Keist and
Mr. Hudson and all of the Portland Police Bureau.

In the meantime, why don't the station managers sit back and take a look at what
has transpired since the coming of the "news helicopters" and think about people
and their lives as opposed to the ratings and who has what first. At this point, if
anyone feels like I do, the ratings are going to tumble...........

T. Fowler - 09:30am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#27 of 119)

Are ratings more important than a human life? I am still reeling from what I
viewed as news yesterday. Let me try my hand at presenting the facts of a story:
FACT- The media was asked to keep its distance from the incident. FACT-
According to Portland Police this did not happen. FACT- Every news station
justified its position regarding helicopters. No one took responsibility for their
actions. FACT- Chief Charles Moose asked the media to respect the families loss
by NOT releasing the slain officers name for at least 24 hours. FACT- On the news
by 8pm.

I'm willing to retract anything I have printed here that is not fact....Can your news
station do the same? While you're at it, you should apologize to the people of
Oregon for the poor way yesterdays incident was reported by your station.

Jayne Burnett - 09:30am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#28 of 119)

Personally I feel the News coverage to be Wrong if they continue once an Officer
or Police Man request not to be in the area. You people are not helping but risking
the lives of the very men and women sworn to protect us. What about Them. Why
in danger their lives for a Story. Is it really worth a Human life. In the future I will
not support any New Channel that Hinders the Police jobs or in dangers their lives.
Channel 8 did ask the police asked. I will watch them.

McWilliams - 10:36am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#29 of 119)

I can't believe what I just read! #24 just blamed the media for the lives of police
officers. I do not agree that the news coverage (helicoptors) was in any way out of
line. I was watching the play by play on Koin t.v. and Capt. Petrie was 2 to 3 mi.
away. Remember people they have cameras with powerful zoom lenses! They did
not hamper the activities below at all. Everyone who reported the news was very
professional and extremely sensitive to the unfortunate incident that transpired.

Leland Hoffman - 10:36am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#30 of 119)

Why does the media feel THEY HAVE TO INTERFERE with situations as this
one? The media says they do it for their viewers, but as reading some of the
remarks already left by several people, this is not what we want covered, especially
when asked not to do so by the Police Department. Is a "BIG SCOOP" on a story
more important then putting someone's life in danger? Why then must the media
continue to do so?

(89 following messages)

(30 previous messages)

Coleen Hardman - 10:37am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#31 of 119)

The time to meekly sit around and " ask about the kinds of weapons we allow
people to have" , as Katz so stupidly put it, is OVER. The time to ACT is now.
There should be a swift and sure death penalty for anyone using assault weapons
who kill and mame innocent people or the men and women sworn to protect us.

Samantha Rush - 10:38am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#32 of 119)

I think it's a shame that police get killed in the line of duty. But I am floored at the
disrespect people are giving the police, You showed a clip on the news, where the
camera was on the ground shooting up the street showing all the police walking
around, Right in front of the camera was a women wearing a blue and purple coat
DRINKING a beer and hiding it under her coat. She looked right at the camera
took a drink and then laughed. This is not the time or place for that kind of attitude,
that woman should get in trouble for drinking in public, disrespecting the grieving
and what ever else they can come up with. I also think you should not speak on
topics you don't know anything about. All you news people, and hospital doctors
and nurses were making remarks about weapons and how they hurt people, it's not
the weapons that hurt people it's people that hurt people. If you don't know about
ammo, like hollow points and so on, don't try to make it up as you go, there is
people out here that do know about these kinds of ammo and you are making
yourselves look stupid. If all the good people turned in there guns that would mean
the only people that would have guns would be the bad people and they would have
a upper hand on the innocent ones. Police can not be there to protect you they
come after the fact and write the report. As our fore father's said " It is every
Americans obligation to protect themselves" and that is what we should be doing.
The bad people already know it's against the law to shot someone, and they
continue to do it. So what makes you think if they outlaw certain types of weapons
and ammunition that they would abide by those laws? You should not
speculate on the situation without knowing all the facts, you may say this is only
speculation and then tell your story, but people only hear the part after "this is only
speculation" and they believe the rest to be fact. Why don't you ever report on bad
people being shot by good people? The only things you ever report on are criminals
doing the shooting and innocent people getting hurt. In doing this you come across
being anti-gun and that all gun owners should be criminals.

Debra-Diane Jenness - 10:39am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#33 of 119)

I do not believe Channel 6 acted inappropriately during this situation. When tension
is high, it is hard to know where to be. Channel 6 has always respected the requests
made to them by the authorities. This was a very tragic situation, but Channel 6's
continuing coverage did not in any way seem to compromise what the police were
doing. I hope we don't enter into the debate Chief Moose eluded to regarding gun
control. You won't get guns away from the criminals, only the honest people! The
bad guys will ALWAYS have a way to get them! The "good guys" need theirs to
protect them from the deranged sort of individual who killed our police officer
yesterday.

Clarissa McFall - 10:40am Jan 28, 1998 PST (#34 of 119)

I watched the breaking news on television as it was happening, and I must say that
every station is lying. It is childish that each station is pointing fingers and accusing
each other for violating the air space. It might be true that these helicopters did not
violate the air space, but to say that you did not show what was going on is a lie.
The stations must beleive that the viewers are idiots and don't understand
technology. All any station can talk about is how great and high tech their new
helicopters are. Obviously this means that they don't need to fly over the action,
being 2 or 3 miles away did not affect their live shots. Every video that they show
now was shown live while it was happening, and these shots put the lives of
officers in danger.

I think it is time for these stations to realize that the viewers do not need to know
what statigic moves the officers are doing, especially if it puts their lives in danger.
There is no way the media will stop coverage of such an event, but they need to
realize what should be shown and what should not.

It was actually terrifying to watch, knowing that the man inside is probably
watching and could kill another police officer at any moment. The only thing that
the stations did care about was to be the first to report what was happening and to
show it to the public. The public must realize that they are calling us idiots and
thinking we will believe every word they say. They are all lying and are all guilty of
showing scenes they were told not to do. I think Chief Moose should be
congratulated for speaking out and criticizing the media. I also think he should have
named stations, but that would have been easier for the non-named stations to
gloat.

Every station should publicly admit to violating the police request and apologize to
the police and the viewers.

Kathleen A Hull - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#35 of 119)

I really think it was STUPID of the media to show what was going on as what we
saw, was exactly what the shooter Steven Douglas Dons saw on his TV. I strongly
feel this was the wrong thing to do on the Media's helicopter's end. It not only let
Don's know every move that the Police were making but it really put the Police
Dept. in serious danger! What is wrong with you people? Doesn't human life
mean anything to you?

Jon Feldman - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#36 of 119)

I think it is pretty clear that once again the Portland media has gone after a story
without regard to the possible consequences of their actions. If the police say that
the helicopters were to close, then the helicopters were to close. This isn't the first
time that KOIN has recklessly followed a story. I remember when the "terrorist"
took over KOIN tower, and stations were asked not to report the story live,
Channel 6 broadcast the entire thing while the other stations continued normal
programming.

I'd also like to add that live reports each evening from Lewis and Clark are a
complete waste of time. Aren't there better stories than a live standup to report that
an unnamed employee has a document that might have something to do with the
Lewinski case? Events like this show clearly that ratings are king.

(83 following messages)

(36 previous messages)

Jim Bellah - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#37 of 119)

I was shocked at the way KOIN and the other news agencies kept saying that they
were following the rules with their helicopters and continued to provide live pictures
of the scene via the helicopter. At one point, Lt. Madison told the media, when they
were photographing him on the street, not to point the cameras in the direction of
the house. After a few remarks by Hancock and Donahue about how you were
complying, you went right back to the helicopter and showing live pictures. I could
see officers hiding behind a building on my tv, the bad guy probably did too. Petry
kept saying that he was obeying the rules and staying at 136/Powell, when that
wasn't the point at all. What was so hard for you to understand? Channels 2 and 8
did the same thing when the KOIN tower was taken over by continually showing
the positions of the police surrounding the buildings. You could have taken one
quick shot of the house and used it over and over so people would know what the
house looked like. That would have satisfied that curiosity without continual live
shots. I think KOIN and the other stations were reckless and irresponsible in their
coverage and the continual whining about following the rules was insulting to our
intelligence.

Bob Stephenson - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#38 of 119)

Isn't it the job of the media to report the "whole" news? When interviewed live,
both Mayor Vera Katz, and Chief Charles Moose were angry at the media. No
station has repeated that interview in it's correct context. The media has chosen to
air only clips where the city officials were not criticizing the media.

Michael Kolody - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#39 of 119)

It is very tragic what has happened. My prayers go out to the friends and family of
the police officer that was killed and the others that were wounded. We need to put
a ban on assult rifles so people cant go around shooting others.

Lyle Wiscarson - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#40 of 119)

I would like to point out that close press scrutiny is the only way to make sure that
police aren't pulling something over on the rest of us. Can anyone come up with an
alternative to the kind of coverage we had yesterday that provides the same
protections from police abuse? Granted that this particular case appears to be
correct in form and content, but what about the small chance that it wasn't? Now
we have all kinds of pictures from all kinds of angles and an investigation could use
all of that to determine that the officers were operating correctly.

Yes, the police take an oath to protect and to serve us. In return, we give them very
great authority over our lives. Some individuals and organizations have abused
those powers in the past, others will abuse them in the future. Only the press and
their microscope can protect us.

Marilyn Wood - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#41 of 119)

My husband is a State Trooper who has worked in a Drug Task Force so I have
some first hand experience in waiting by the phone during search warrants or the
more casual but just as tense "knock and talks". I'd like to express my opinion
regarding the events of yesterday.....

I think the media coverage "on the ground" was sufficient, safe for all involved and
truely as much information as the public should be exposed to at that point. I did
hear Warren Petrie being asked to leave the air space during a time when he said he
was going to "jump in here" and get this shot...(or something of the like) and that
was inappropriate. I personally believe the heliocopters should be GROUNDED
during SERT activity to respect and protect the officers who are putting there lives
on the line serving our communities.

Beyond that, I'd be furious with the Portland Police Bureau for EVER allowing that
situtation to evolve in that manner. No amount of marijuana is worth risking
lives.....this should NEVER have happened in the first place....NEVER. PPB
should have had all their ducks in a row before they ever walked up to that door.
MY POINT IS THIS....apparently the police had previous information regarding
the inhabitants of that house and the fire power that they held. All the information
that is available TODAY was available YESTERDAY. (suspects previous history in
Nevada) It is soley my opinion, that the Bureau let these officers down...the ON
SCENE RANKING OFFICIER...or the UNIT OR TASK FORCE SUPERVISOR
should have stopped those Officers from ever approaching that house. They should
have used an ENTRY TEAM! Do you think they knew the layout of the house,
how many people where in there or any number of other things that create a clean
entry? If you screw up, this is the result! Chief Moose did a pathetic job dealing
with his frustration yesterday by yelling at the media. The media the was wrong in a
number or instances but they would not have had a story to cover if this operation
had gone as it should have.

My deepest sympathies to all affected by this horrible tragedy.

Max - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#42 of 119)

I would like to respond to Colleen Hardman's comment (#31) "There should be a
swift and sure death penalty for anyone using assault weapons who kill and mame
innocent people or the men and women sworn to protect us. "

I think that killing a police officer is punishable by death in Oregon. (Please,
someone correct me if I'm wrong.) As far as I'm concerned, the weapon used is
irrelevant. So, what if the guy hacked her to death with a fire axe, or beat him to
death with a baseball bat? The only question is whether or not there was sufficient
justification for the act.

So, I guess I'm wondering what you would like to see changed. You can't punish
anyone for a crime until they've been convicted of it in court. You're not suggesting
we change that, are you?

Murder of anyone in Oregon is a crime with severe penalties, assuming the courts
and parole boards enforce the penalties. But, the legal process is complex. I don't
think you can simplify the process without making it less reliable than it is now. As
we are dealing with lives, I think the process needs to be as reliable as possible.

-Max

(77 following messages)

(42 previous messages)

Frances Yost - 02:45pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#43 of 119)

Not only did KOIN violate the safty of the officers by failing to withhold close
views of the police activity and their position, but they componded the problem by
disavowing any responsibility for not pulling back. NOW, I must say in all fairness
to KOIN personnel, perhaps they don't understand that their cameras, of which,
they are so proud, presents a very immediate danger of being seen by anyone who
has their TV on and is watching. Doesn't the media, KOIN KGW KATU, believe
that the man in the house was probably smart enough to watch and observe where
the police where?

NO! NO! KOIN did not cause the death of the officer or the wounding of the
injured officer. KOIN, nor any other TV station was on scene at that specific time.
When the officers were fired on not even the police were aware that their men were
in imminent danger of being in a shoot out. I'v been there-done that and I know the
feeling of an officer when he/she is in a situation where guns are involved, they do
not want nor do they need to have a camera on their action. Really the public can
do nothing at that time. Media, let it go, report that there is a situation at a location
and to avoid the area, BUT please wait until the police give you the go ahead
believe me the police will encourage you to do responsible reporting.

You failed to report the correct hospital where the wounded officer was taken your
reporter said that she had been taken to University Hospital, not once but twice; she
was infact taken to the outstanding trauma center on the west coast, Emanuel
Hospital.

The media seems to feel that because of their presence the man came out of the
house because he saw the police had surrounded his house. Please! give us a break.
The man was out of the house either by his own choice or by the efforts of an
officer. We don't at this point know what the circumstances where that caused the
man to exit the house. Don't try to take credit for sometning you are not sure of.

To add insult to injury, you decided that the public failed to understand the news
that had been reported for hours so you continued to report on the incidence after
the Presidents State of the Union address. The rest of the stations believed that
their audience was sufficently advised of the bad news, at least, until the 11 o'clock
news. It would have been nice if we could have enjoyed the program JAG; but
since that was not possible I, and I'm sure many others, chose to watch another
channel.

Please report what is news and leave the sensational and repeattive reporting to
some other media.

In one of the comments there was a reference to Katz making a stupid statement
regarding guns. No the statement is not stupid, what is stupid is not requiring
dealers to withhold armour piercing ammo from the idiot "hunter" from attaining
such ammoo. PLEASE, don't tell me that that kind of ammo is needed or even
used by hunters. In the first place a real hunter does not need or use an automatic
weapon to kill his game. The "hunter" who requires that kind of fire power does not
go into the woods to hunt four legged game. What was STUPID was the question
put to Mayor Katz, how are the family doing. DUMB, DUMB, How would the
reporter? feel if they had just had one of their loved ones shot in the line of duty?
Mayor Katz showed nothing but contempt and anger when replying to the question.

Tom Leahy - 03:57pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#44 of 119)

First, my heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and fellow officers of the
police officers killed and wounded yesterday. May they find solace and comfort
although it never seems to arrive soon enough. But the issue regarding the gun and
ammo used by the criminal was addressed in ludicrous manner by the doctor, the
anchor people and the police chief. The job of a police officer would be much safer
if we were all locked in individual cells, to be let out only at certain times and
constantly searched to be sure we had no weapons. But instead of police officers in
America, they would be Gestapo troops.....Their honor is that they can do a
difficult, demanding and not well compensated job while they honor the rights of
the law abiding public. Once they catch the lawbreaker, IF they were punished,
there would be fewer of them to attack the police and/or the public. Bet the
investigation shows the shooter to have had numerous run ins with the law in
whatever jurisdictions he lived in for any length of time. And the Second
Amendment was not written to protect HUNTING weapons; it was to protect the
right to have arms PERIOD.

Ron Baugher - 03:57pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#45 of 119)

re: #43 I can tell that Frances Yost is equal to the reporters of Tuesdays slaying of
an officer. In the first place it is illegal to hunt with an automatic weapon. If this
individual had such a weapon which I doubt it was not legally purchased from a
legal firearms dealer. Also it does not require armor piercing bullets to penetrate
body armor which in reality will only stop a majority of the handgun bullets. Any
round used in the vast majority of "hunting" rifles will penetrate body armor as will
an arrow fired from a simple bow. You are talking from a standpoint of emotion
and it is evident that you are not in the possession of knowledge required to argue
on the very points that you attempted. I to am truly appalled when senseless
murder happens but if that person who chooses to murder didn't have a gun then
they would find another avenue to persue their sickness.

Joshua Jeffery - 04:35pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#46 of 119)

I think that the News Media was very irresponsible in covering the incident. When
police are dealing with armed suspects, especially when those suspects have already
demonstrated a lack of respect for human life, the news media should wait to
broadcast news until after the situation has been resolved. It is totally irresponsible
to air live video footage of police officers during dangerous situations becuase it
comprimises the officer's tactics and safety. The life of a peace officer is much
more important and valuable than the desire for the news media to air breaking
news coverage in the persuit of being "number one". Oregon State Law currently
gives the county sheriff's and their deputies the right to restrict airspace during
search and rescue and emergency service operations. The legistlature needs to
consider doing the same for emergency police operations, and should adopt strict
penalties for the violation of such legislation. It is immoral, unaccepatable, and
unethical to place the gathering and transmitting of news information over the lives
of the peace officers who work hard every day to protect our lives and our society.

(73 following messages)

(46 previous messages)

Ron Baugher - 04:35pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#47 of 119)

This is an addendum to my previous message re: #43 by Frances Yost. In your
letter you mentioned armor piercing bullets. In these instances armor piercing
bullets generally do less damage to body tissue than do normal hunting bullets. The
very reason armor piercing bullets were adopted by the military is the fact that they
kill less people so as to require people to take care of the wounded. These bullets
do not expand when coming in contact with soft tissue as do hunting bullets do so
in reality they will in the majority of cases have less trauma inducing capabilities.
And as I stated before if you shoot body armor with a rifle such as a 30-06 it will
penetrate the difference is that armor piercing bullets will be approximately half the
diameter of a hunting bullet when it enters the soft tissue so you can see that armor
piercing bullets are not more lethal in this situation.

Clarissa McFall - 05:06pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#48 of 119)

I am not sure where #40 is coming from but the comment made is ridiculous. To
think that the only reason that the media was present during the whole situation was
to make sure they were not pulling something over on us, is absurd. The only
reason they were there was to get the story and get it first. These stations put lives
in danger, just to get the story. Now they will turn to the families of the victim and
without giving them any private time to grieve, demand personal stories about their
lives. The media never knows when to quit, they need to listen to the public instead
of watching their rating status.

Ronald Rummel - 05:59pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#49 of 119)

First of all I want to extend my condolences to the families of the police officers
who were killed and wounded in yestrerday's tragedy. Any time a human life is
ended in such a violent manner is the worst. I am from rural northwestern
Pennsylvania, and saw the news coverage via satellite tv. I feel the news anchors
were very poor when discussing the firearm(s) used in the attack. I don't know how
many times I heard both of them say "I assume", or "we assume". They should be
reporting facts not assumptions. There lack of knowledge of firearms was very
evident. Not that they should be experts. Their first interview with a firearms
dealer(Terry?) was even worse. He seemed to know as little as the reporters. I
don't want to get into a argument of gun control. I won't pretend to know the laws
of your Strate and locality. I do believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed
to own and use firearms. There are checks and balances in place to keep firearms
out of the hands of the criminal. In this case there seems to have been a definite
breakdown in the system. This type of mistake needs corrected. The courts also
need to be tougher on this type of criminal element that has no regard for human
life.

David Cunningham - 05:59pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#50 of 119)

I cant think of a better freind a criminal can have, after seiung the coverage
yesterday. Had the suspect not been wounded in the initial gunfight, he could have
sat in his chair and sized up all the police officers positions. I think all three news
teams in Portland need to realize that they are not there to produce "tabloid'
television. the new choppers are just another tool to better sensationalize the news.
I find it repugnant.

Walter Clute - 05:59pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#51 of 119)

I Think Channel 6 Did a Grate job They did what they were asked to do when they
were asked to the photos were grate and as I watched ( ch 6 ) from the time it
begain I saw at NO TIME did news Chopper 6 Give any Vital Position of the police
away .I also think the Police chef needs to control his anger the Officers were
already shot when news chopper 6 got to the scine I am truly SORRY that the
Officers were shot as i would be if any one was shot but this was NOT A RESULT
OF NEWS CHOPPER 6 OR ANY OF CHANNEL 6 CREW THEY DID WHAT
THEY WERE ASKED TO DO ! The police cheif needs to apoligize to news
room 6 and all ther staff

MICHAEL DRESSLER - 06:54pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#52 of 119)

I would just like to say that I took an oath 10+ years ago, to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States. For that reason I will not go against the 1st
Ammendment right of freedom of speech. HOWEVER, The intrusive acts carried
out by certain News stations yesterday, are extremely uncalled for. I firmly believe
in the "Peoples Right to Know," but when the press is involved in a tragic situation
as what took place yesterday, or in someones personal life tragity, and they are
asked to leave the sceen, they should respect that request and do as they are asked.
If I was to come down to your news station and start taking pictures of things, or
recording your news cast for my own benifit, I am almost sure to be thrown out of
your station and possibly arrested, as well as being sued. The actions that took
place yesterday warrented no less action than what I descibed above as
punishments for the typical U.S. citizen. Furthermore, because of my firm belief in
the Constitution, I DO NOT agree that gun control is the answer to the problem.
More control does not keep the weapons out of the hands of the criminals. I believe
if we were to stand behind the punishments handed down by judges,(capitol
punishment for example), it is very possible and probible that the crime rate could
go down.

To let the people of this state, and the Police Department of Portland know, that I
am truely, truely, sorry for your loss, and the possible losses yesterday. I believe
the PPD is a fine force of well respected men and women. Respect is something
that is earned; I feel there are many officers in PPD that have eared the respect of
people in Portland. I just wish other departments in this state would follow the
examples of Most of the officers in PPD. I say most because of the few bad apples
in the past.

Thank you for the job you do PPD, keep up the good work and be careful out
there.

(67 following messages)

(52 previous messages)

Janice D. Skipper - 06:55pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#53 of 119)

I offer my sympathy and prayers to the families of the fallen officers and Police
Officers everywhere. I am the wife of a police officer and the news of an officer
down is always a shock, and brings a deep sadness. I have read thru all the
messages left here and would like to add that these police officers face this type of
danger everyday. Regardless if they work in a small town or large city, their lives
are on the line. The one point that was not metioned is the fact that protective vests
of higher caliber and safety levels are available. However due to budget contraints
most agencies cannot afford to provide them to their officers. This problem is far
more easily solved then the costant debate over wether or not assault guns should
be legal. Swift legislation will not remove all assault weapons from being available
to the unstable and just plain evil in our society. But beter vests will certainly
protect these men and women that do the work that everyone is so judgemental of.

But most of all I hope that the support that people are expressing now will continue
throughout the year. And please remember to pray for my husband and those that
choose to protect and serve with him.

tech iii - 08:04pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#54 of 119)

I don't mind you, or any media coverage of newsworthy topics, but in situations
like the most recent tragety could easily be handled in a safe manner by simply
implimenting a program where the media can take pictures from a distance that
doesn't compromise the officers safety from either visual or audible means. The big
difference would be to not allow the tape to be aired untill the emergency situation
is safely resolved, and then the agency with jurisdiction could issue a notice to the
press that would authorize the tape of the coverage to be aired. This would not give
any station any type of advantage in getting the story out first. There could be stiff
fines for any release of coverage prior to the authorizing statement being issued, to
prevent rogue reporters and "NEWS" coverage.

I am deeply saddened by the death of the officer in this most recent situation, and
would like to extend my sympathy to the officers family. I also wish the speediest
of recoveries for the two surviving officers.

SM Schamel - 08:04pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#55 of 119)

Despite what seems to be an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the very
people whose "right to know" you assert you are defending, you choose the low
road to ratings rather than the high road of ethical decision-making and true concern
for those involved. Certainly the public would like to be informed of situations of
such import as that which happened yesterday afternoon, but why the need to
overlook the safety of human life to broadcast what is essentially unimportant in
regards to all of the circumstances? You like to talk about defending the First
Amendment, but I don't see how that comes in to play when you put someone's life
in danger just to get some slick helicopter coverage. This is not what the Freedom
of the Press is about. By arguing that it is in a case like this, you weaken your point
for other cases when it really has a place. Listen to the reactions of viewers. Get
beyond appealing to the lowest common denominater and report good news, not
cheap news.

ROGER SABROWSKI - 08:05pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#56 of 119)

I THINK THAT WERE THE POLICE HAVE A SCENE LIKE THEY HAD
NEAR 112TH & DIVISION st. THAT NEWS MEDIA CAN RECORD
EVERYTHING FROM BEHIND THE TAPE AND FROM THE SKY UNLESS
THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD TO GET OUT. BUT I SAID RECORD NOT
LIVE....... AND SHOW IT AND SOON AS POLICE HAVE SAID THE SCENE
IS SERCURED. THE POLICE ON THE OTHER HAND NEED TO BE UP
FRONT AND TELL YOU RIGHT AWAY, THAT EVERYTHING IS UNDER
CONTROL. THEN I THINK BOTH THE POLICE & THE MEDIA CAN GET
THERE JOBS DONE, INTERVIEW FREINDS & NEIGHBORS RECORDED
AND BE READY WHEN THEY GET THE WORD BUT NOT BEFORE.

Ann Cook - 08:05pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#57 of 119)

I absolutely agree with Chief Moose's opinion that media must begin to be more
responsible when reporting stories like the tragedy yesterday. I believe in freedom
of speech. I also believe that the lives of officers (and reporters) can be put in
jeopardy in situations like that which occurred yesterday. When officers are
involved in such a situation they must absolutely be able to fully concentrate
without the distraction of helicopters flying overhead and reporters and camera
people trying to get as close to the action as possible.

Chief Moose had every right to be furious -- we had just lost one officer and
possibly another. He was grieving for them and their families. I think Portland
media should look hard at their style and listen to the Chief.

I must say I did get a certain satisfaction out of seeing the bad guy naked on the
back of a truck. Too bad we weren't having an ice storm.

D Jackson - 08:05pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#58 of 119)

I would like to respond to a couple of issues with the news media that I find
offensive and less than productive for our society. #1 I don't believe it is necessary
for any of us to see or know the tactical positions of any siege being done. This is
very dangerous for the very people that are sworn to protect us, all of us! These
helicopters are a necessity for some situations related to traffic but have no place if
there is any evidence of danger to a single individual. #2 I also don't believe that it
is necessary for anyone to know the personal background of any person involved
by chance in an unfortunate situation. This is not only invasive but cruel and in
poor judgment. This puts people on a public table to be judged. After all who are
we to judge anyone. This is typical tabloid journalism.

The news media needs to remember that we as the public need information that will
benefit us, not cause us or any individual personal or emotional harm that is
unjustly warranted. I feel that it is a journalistic cop-out to hide behind the
constitution amendment to justify how they conducted their coverage with the use
of a helicopter. It could have been aired to us after the suspect was in custody.
Thank you for listening to our comments and concerns.

(61 following messages)

(58 previous messages)

Robert Stoughton - 08:05pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#59 of 119)

First, my deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the police officers
involved in yesterdays shooting incident. I hope that they can take some comfort in
knowing that the great majority of Oregoinions truley appreciate the job they do
and the risks they take to try and keep a lid on the insanity that seems to be
growing in our society. As I watched the news coverage of this ordeal and listened
to the reporters in front of the cameras, I could'nt help but wonder at the use of
words like "We assume, it's speculation, it's not clear", but went ahead and
"reported" these things as news anyway. I assume you consider yourselves to be
journalists, but after watching some of the recent coverage, thats speculation on my
part. It's not clear to me what part the media wants to play in our society. If you
want to be reporters, then report what you see and know, not what might be. If you
want to be journalists, please take the time to research your pieces and present a
fair and balanced story. It is also interesting to note the different slant on the police
today, now that you have been criticized, and your use of first amendment rights,
when yesterday when the Mayor was calling for a harder look at gun control,
nowhere did I hear anything about second amendment rights. I believe you all
would like to do a better job. Maybe if you worried less about sound bytes and
ratings, you would find that us common folk will appreciate the effort and respond
in kind.

earl bennett - 08:06pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#60 of 119)

I would sincerely hope the Portland area media are taking serioulsy, the mostly
negative criticism of their coverage of the tragic shooting, on tuesday. It seems that
being there first, closest and longest is the order of the day when news breaks. It
also seems that it dosen't matter whose safety is jeopardized in the attempt to
one-up the other media entities. I observed live pictures from "chopper 6", showing
the SERT team moving tactically on the location of the baracaded perpetrator.
Should the perpetrator have been watching "News Center 6" coverage of this story,
he could not have had better intelligence gathering if he had his own spy sattlite!
This kind of helicopter cowboy mentality serves no one, other than the evidently
huge egos of those gathering and reporting the "facts" of the story. Then, as if to
say,"wait, we can make it even worse", "News Center 6" in an obviously pro-gun
control piece, tonight on the 6PM segment, made several references to the weapon
used by the perpetrator as, an "high powered automatic rifle". Careful, thoughtful
research being replaced by parroted words, told to a reporter who may not know
the difference between automatic and semi- automatic weapons is irresponsible.
Placing our law enforcement officers in jeopardy is inexcusable. The Portland
media should hang their collective heads in shame, then make the appropriate
appologies and adjustments to their news gathering policies.

John Sellers - 08:07pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#61 of 119)

From 1957-1963 I worked for two northwest television stations in Medford and
Seattle. Although TV technology has evolved greatly, the importance of doing the
best job possible to inform the public has always been at the forefront of news. I
think Portland's TV stations, and especially KOIN, did an excellent, ethical and
effective job.

I remember in about 1979 flying in a forest service helicopter over a forest fire in
the Ashland watershed to take polaroids (we didn't have video remotes then) and
provide on the spot andio using the forest service radio bands and a telephone
connection to the studio. My principal job was sales but I lived in Ashland and
willingly covered the fire. Back then, some people said we risked causing public
panic. PHOOWEY! WE COVERED THE FIRE AS BEST WE COULD, JUST
LIKE KOIN COVERED THE SHOOTING OF 3 POLICE OFFICERS.

Keep up the good work and insist on media's right to provide helicopter zoom video
or any other legal method to keep us on top of the news.

John C. Sellers, 3815 N. Alaska St., Portland 97217 jordy@teleport.com

Wally Steucke - 08:07pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#62 of 119)

Methinks thou protesteth too much. All the Portland TV stations have-throughout
the day, denied their participation in the excesive chopper coverage of the fatal
shooting. I sugest you get a tape of Bill Gallager's radio show on that day. About
3:00 pm a caller FROM THE AREA called to complain bitterly of the overflights of
the TV helicopters, one in particular, and you can hear it in the background. That
was directly in the area. I heard the call.

However, I do think all the media folk have missed the much greater point. TV
news folks are paid to get the story. OJ, the Pres, now this are clear references to
many of us that SOME media are willing to get A story, even if it isn't the right one.
It can always be corrected later - and in fact many times it is. The problem is, in the
hurry to get the story, many assumptions are presented, facts garbled and
information incorectly presented. It may be corrected later, but many of us only see
the news once. If what you present is speculative, or w

Donna Coleman - 08:07pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#63 of 119)

I am the wife of a recently retired 28 year veteran police officer. Chills ran through
me yesterday when you announced that two officers were down and there was no
further information. There are families of police officers that watch tv during the
day and I am sure I can speak for them also...what a terrible way to hear that your
loved one has possibly been shot and/or killed. Information that an incident is in
progress would have been a more civil statement until families could have been
notified. Please..review your procedures. What if one of those officers had been
your family member? We are proud of the statements Chief Moose made. You
showed police positions that gives the criminal the upper hand. It also could have
cost more lives. Please, we respect your need to give us current news and
information. But, putting our families and friends in more danger is not concientous
reporting to our communities......

(56 following messages)

(63 previous messages)

Steve Marriott - 08:08pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#64 of 119)

It wasn't to long ago that a lone gunman held the KOIN tower and it's occupants
hostage. The reason that my wife and I became huge fans of KOIN TV, was that
you refused to air any live coverage about a potentaily dangerous situation. How
quick we forget. I am not an anti-gunner, nor am I against the press to cover a
story. Just do it in a safe manner that will not endanger lives any more than they
already are. I.E. time delay? (like a few hours) KOIN TV is not the only culpret in
this sad situation, but it is still the channel I watch the most for breaking news. Just
remember how you must have felt knowing that the gunman might be watching
another station that was doing live coverage when you were held hostage.

Thank you, Steve L. Marriott

Curt Russell - 08:08pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#65 of 119)

Dear Channel Six, I like most everyone else in the metropolitan area was watching
the coverage of the officer shooting yesterday. I was surfing between the news
channels and I took the opportunity to compare the three channels. Channel Six, I
believe failed miserably. Channel Six, in particular the helicopter pilot, "Captain"
Warren Petrie, was informing us how well their technology was working, and how
they we willing to use that technology to get the good pictures, potentially
compromising the officers. Also, to violate the airspace after being ejected by ATC
to get that picture, was the basest of things for you to do. After I watched that and
realized what you were doing I finished watching the outcome of the situation on
your competitor, Newschannel 8, who did not violate airspace, complied with
officers orders by not showing what was going on. I think channel eight has similar
technology but they choose to not use it. Interestingly enough the story was not
compromised by not violating ATC orders. They were probably more informative
because they didn't spend time touting their technology.I am embarrassed by your
efforts, I would hope that our local newschannels can rise and stay above the likes
of the tabloid television programs. I am not a police officer, but I work with them
every day. I know their job is a hard one, and to have thier job made even more
difficult in the interest of ratings is least human thing you can do. Curt Russell
Vancouver, WA curt@pacifier.com

Thomas Drake - 10:01pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#66 of 119)

I would like to offer my condolences to the police officers that were involved in this
tragedy first of all. Secondly I feel that KOIN news was very negligent and
inconsiderate in their broadcasting of this story. Great you have a neat zoom
camera that can see a fly on the wall at three miles, so what, our police officers
need to be protected, not exploited. Your station in my opinion shot hemselves in
the foot on this story. Show some consideration, I remember when your station
was under seige by a gunman, your cameras weren't showing zoom shots then,
why because you probably didn't want to put your reporters and cameramen in
danger, why put the police in more danger than they already are. In the future show
some compassion and consideration, don't worry so much about ratings, you are an
excellent news station, show some class that I know you have. Sometimes limited
news and pictures are best for the safety of society. Don't stand behind the First
Admendment of the Constitution on this, to me that is a cheap cop out.

David Brown - 10:01pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#67 of 119)

The tragic shooting of a police officer yesterday was preventable. The suspect had
a list of arrests and convictions in Nevada that should have kept him behind bars
for many years if not life. The real failure here is our criminal justice system that
lets hardened career criminals back out on the streets to continue practicing their
trade. I support the better bullet resistant (the media incorrectly calls them bullet
proof) vests for our police. I believe that added gun control laws will NOT improve
the situation for lawful citizens.

Emilio Cancela - 10:04pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#68 of 119)

As others have already stated, I too feel that the helicopters were showing more
than the police involved wanted shown.Thru out the day, the police requested that
the choppers move back, I don't believe it meant for you to use your telescopic lens
to show what was going on..but to move back and stop showing the movements of
the police on the ground.Maybe all of this won't stop until we lose a police officer
because a "criminal" sees what you showed on the TV and uses that information
for his benefit!

Nancy Cooper - 10:06pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#69 of 119)

Channel Six - Your station was the one I turned to yesterday for live coverage, at
least at first. I was catching the story in snippets, on the run. I was amazed that
your helicopter coverage chose to zoom in on officers around the perimeter, thus
giving away their positions and endangering their safety. I became appalled that you
continued to do so, even after being ordered out of the airspace. Your reporters
were stating that one of the concerns were that the people in the house had high
powered weapons, and no one was sure of the number of people in the house, or
the quantity or caliber of weapons available to the people in the house. Did you not
stop and think that a high power weapon could be used to isolate the officers you
were so kindly locating for anyone watching a television? God forbid one of them
had been shot, the media would be the last to look at their own role in endangering
the lives of these officers. The coup de gras however, was when my morning radio
station broadcast statements from the news directors of the local stations stating
they complied with all requests to vacate airspace and they were not endangering
officers. I ask you, stop, look at your tapes from yesterday and try to say that with
a straight face. Walk a mile in the shoes of an officer. Put yourself on the front
lines, have your life further endangered by unthinking media trying to beat each
other to "the story" and then re-evaluate your willingness to endanger officers. I, for
one, am not buying your high ground that everyone complied with all requests from
the authorities. Shame on you. One of the reasons I turned to your station initially
was that your station has shown good judgment in the past in looking for the real
story. Not so this time. I, too, turned to your competitors to support a station that
was not putting people's lives at risk in pursuit of "the story." Nancy Cooper

(50 following messages)

(69 previous messages)

RANDY GETMAN - 10:07pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#70 of 119)

Yes, there are certainly TOO MANY helicopters in the air and it is very annoying.
But I did not feel there was excessive coverage of the Wednsday shootings. Most
people had a sincere interest and concern about the well being of our police
officers, after all. The local stations (especially KOIN) did a fair and honest job of
coverage. The outburst from Cheif Charles Moose was very unprofessional and
unbecoming of a public official. If he had an issue with the media he should have
addressed it in an official and proper forum. Watching him sound off in the heat of
the moment the way he did made me glad that I do not work under him or near him
in the bureau. His public behavior only validates what others in the ranks are saying
about the way he runs the bureau.

RANDY GETMAN - 10:09pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#71 of 119)

Yes, there are certainly TOO MANY helicopters in the air and it is very annoying.
But I did not feel there was excessive coverage of the Tuesday shootings. Most
people had a sincere interest and concern about the well being of our police
officers, after all. The local stations (especially KOIN) did a fair and honest job of
coverage. The outburst from Cheif Charles Moose was very unprofessional and
unbecoming of a public official. If he had an issue with the media he should have
addressed it in an official and proper forum. Watching him sound off in the heat of
the moment the way he did made me glad that I do not work under him or near him
in the bureau. His public behavior only validates what others in the ranks are saying
about the way he runs the bureau.

Larry Ford - 10:09pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#72 of 119)

Ignorance is not a part of the 1st amendment. That is what your station showed us
yesterday in its coverage of the Police Officer Shootings. Total ignorance. I was
shocked as I watched what the Police were doing as they did it. Imagine what you
would feel like if your ignorance caused the death of another officer! Is your race to
be first or best worth a life? I will no longer watch your news. You have lost this
one!

Steven C. Yager - 10:10pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#73 of 119)

I feel that, if the helicopter was giving "aid and succour to the enemy", in this case,
the shooter, the helicopter should have backed off. I also feel the same about the
local news coverage.

You see, it is rather like what happened with CNN when we went to war with Iraq.
Sadam Hussein was getting his info. from CNN, just as we were, until a
conservative "black out" was declared. Was the shooter getting his info. from
Channels 2, 6, 8, and 12? One hopes not.

J.P.Smith - 10:12pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#74 of 119)

I believe that your TV station has done a great disservice to the men and women of
the Portland Police Bureau. Your station and its helicopter created a life threatening
situation for the officers that responded to the call on SE 111th. Having to deal with
the loss of one officer and the serious injury to another was difficult, yet the
officers and SERT team reacted professionally and responsibly to apprehend the
murderer. This incredibly difficult task was made that much harder because of the
repeated interruptions from your news helicopter. It was unbearable to watch your
cameras reveal the actions and locations of officers at the scene. It was
unbelievable to hear your helicopter pilot say that he could not talk with the
reporters because he was being told, AGAIN, to leave the airspace. Your reporting
was not professional journalism but rather sensational journalism. To claim that the
public has a right to know what's going on is ludicrous. No rights would have been
violated if your station would have shown restraint and used common sense. Your
news reports hindered the safe operations of the police and placed more of them in
danger. You should be ashamed of your actions.

Mark Trapman - 10:13pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#75 of 119)

Greetings.As a viewer outside the Portland area (Bend),using your station for
network broadcasting. It amazes me that a snow storm can shut down all
programing by all Portland stations, so that a person can BRAVE the elements in
Columbia's finest outdoor wear,in many remote ares and ramble for at least 8hrs
explaining play by play scenes of "Snow programing" and call it a public service. As
when a serious Police matter occurs and as a "public Service" we would expect
detail so that we would avoid the area, as gunfire and hostage situations usually on
their own draw a crowd.All Portland programing is interupted for 41/2 hours and a
Newscast war is declared to get information on the event. As Police are responding
to the unknown,News Heliocoptors are aproaching, cameras positioned in areas
near the scene,interviews with neighbors begin,Pictures of Police entering scene
hiding behind vehicles. When Tactical shows up, News media broadcasts the
position and weapons they are using.Tear gas is reported,a entry is being made, all
being reported seconds after engagement. Fortunatly nobody other than suspect
was further injured.I Sincerely hope the Police and News media lay down ground
rules for future events.And that the first call made is to the cable company to have
the suspected house cut off. Compile the facts and report thats the medias job.And
most importantly the days News is shown at six and eleven.

Keith Chang - 11:22pm Jan 28, 1998 PST (#76 of 119)

One thing that also got my attention during this 'breaking news' was how little the
anchors changed their style after the police spokesman asked that the cameras not
point down the street or at the house where the suspect was lodged. For 5-10
minutes only 'previously recorded' material was aired, but then we were back to the
live stuff, constantly being told that this is a telephoto lens shot, etc. THAT'S NOT
THE POINT!

Rex Reynolds - 05:35am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#77 of 119)

Gentlemen, I am old enough to have sold newspapers on a street corner. I
remember the excitement of an "Extra" addition. We all appreciate breaking news.
However, I feel we need to appreciate the need for restraint from the broadcasters
and begin to base our choice for "best" on most accurate reporting. By doing this,
we will provide the means for careful considerate reporting. Thank you.

(42 following messages)

(77 previous messages)

Heidi Hagen - 05:35am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#78 of 119)

Our desire to know the news is not more important than the safety of the officers!
Perhaps the officers perceived the News Teams to be more intrusive than they
were, but the officers ability to work in a life threatening situation was certainly
impaired by the distraction caused by the news helicopters/personnel.Citizens in the
locale were informed and guided to safety-the rest of us can wait to hear the details.

Levi Easlon - 05:46am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#79 of 119)

My feelings about recent events with the officer involved shooting . Really I believe
that the media has the right to cover stories to an extent. The media's job is to
report the facts givin by public relations. I do not think that the lives of officers
should be placed at risk by cameras or by these new helicopter cameras. I was
disappointed to see what was shown on my t.v. screen. Those officers are out there
to protect us, but these cameras are not protecting them. Yes Law Enforcement is a
very dangerous job. I feel that all media coverage when they do not recieve the
facts, that they blow thing out of proportion. That did not happen because the Lt.
from Portland tried to report what he knew, but the manner in how he did was not
professional. The new cameras that are being used in the helicopters should be
banned from Crime Scenes, and the reporters should stop to think about the
increased danger that they are providing to officers who are there risking there lives
for ours. One thing is for sure, I would be nervous if my back was shown on t.v. in
a situation like that.

Dancing Trout - 05:52am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#80 of 119)

When the Portland police used a Knock and Talk pretense that consisted of five
police at the front and back door shouting 'police' and then kicking open the door, I
think they have a lot of gall to blame the media when things go wrong.

'Knock and talk' was presented as a benign way for police to make contact with
people. In truth it is an invasive, violence prone procedure. The Portland police
department and all the people of Portland pay dearly when we lose officers in the
line of duty. This time it was a direct result of subterfuse on the part of the police
department.

The press and the media helicopters are the only hope the people have to stay
informed of the real situation when officials cover it up.

The mayor pleads 'gun control'. The chief bellows 'press interference'. But the truth
is more sinister, and impinging on the freedoms of the people is not the solution.

L. Kays - 05:53am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#81 of 119)

Channel Six, I am amazed and disgusted with your reporting of yesterdays fatal
Police Officer shooting. I have the misfortune of knowing those officers involved,
and though I and many others in the office yesterday afternoon were desperately
wanting to know what was happening, your camera people put many other Officers
lives on the line just to tell the story. How dare you tell us that your live shots of
SWAT members running to their positions did not compromise Officer Safety.
How dare you get on your soapbox about the Freedom of Speech Amendment and
your rights to inform the public, Mike Donohue? Will you finally understand the
importance of staying clear of In-Progress crime scenes when Shirley Hancock's
children become sworn Officers for Portland Police? Maybe then you will realize
this is not about being the #1 news station. If somebody out there wants to see and
experience a live Police "take-down" send them to the precinct and sign them up.
Let them put their life on the line everyday. I thank God the gunman didn't take
anymore lives, despite your up to the minute coverage. I wonder what that lawsuit
would have cost you? P.S. I am switching to Channel 12. Their emotional and
accurate report from a grieving Janice Weibel in 5-10 minutes did far better
newsreporting than watching KOIN all afternoon.

Betty Patton - 09:14am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#82 of 119)

Having a friend who lives on the street where the police shooting took place ( one
house away ), I was very interested in the situation throughout the day. KOIN TV,
I think you did a super job in presenting the news and appreciate the professional
manner in which you maintained your distance as asked by police. Your helicopter
was the ONLY one I observed staying back ( you were flying directly over my
house ).

It has to be an awful thing to deal with the death of a friend, co-worker, wife,
mother etc. and to them, I offer my deepest sympathys. But to blame all the media
for one station being to aggressive in their reporting, that's not right. Sandy James
did a wonderful job and was very professional in her reporting, she was very
sympathetic and being a veteran reporter really shows in her coverage. Thank you
Sandy!

Keep up the outstanding work!

Daniel Robertson - 09:14am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#83 of 119)

My opinion is that it is your job to provide the news to your viewers as it happens,
yet when it comes to issues of safety in that your providing live shots of an area
wherein that shot may be able to endanger someone then you should be allowed to
tape the shot for later viewing but not air it live. If your shooting live was causing
imperilment this is the request you should have received and not what you were
asked at the Dons scene. You had asmuch right to be there as the police so to
request you to leave, getout of the sky is unwarranted. I agree that some of the air
shots I saw could have endangered officers but in thiscase did not. It is my hope
that you and the policecan come to an agreeent on how to handle this situation
when it happens. Nexttime maybe they will be informed enough not to overreact
and just request that you not broadcast live what you are shooting until after the
danger of the situation has been culminated. Daniel Robertson-Beaverton

Ron Baugher - 09:15am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#84 of 119)

I think alot of people are just jumping on the bandwagon about this issue because
your police chief complained. I doubt if any of these people ever considered this
until someone else complained. So if this is a problem, the police and news media
needs to discuss it and if a viable solution cannot be arranged a solution needs to be
legislated. I personally do not agree with doing anything by adding more laws but if
that is the solution required to insure police safety so be it. It is real easy to get
aboard an issue like this but I seriously doubt most of these complaints are driven
by knowledge of the situation, rather by the emotions of those that are either pro or
con concerning your police chief's politics.

(35 following messages)

(84 previous messages)

Mark A. Erickson - 09:15am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#85 of 119)

When the news media sees itself as the story, the public is ill served. This myopic
entity will rationalize its way out of ANY question of its proper role until it (the
news media) arrives at the answer it wants. Kinda like O.J. Simpson looking for the
so-called real killer. Don't get me wrong, I travel a lot and Portland TV news and its
press are excellent, a lot better than this size market would seem to merit! Here's an
angle: Cover Vera and Charles's Secret Police (formerly known as The Portland
Police) and how they've adopted D.C. methods of diverting attention from
questionable actions by villifying the imagined "enemy". Portland police used to be
a reponsive part of the community but Moose is pulling a Darryl Gates "us vs.
them" trip on our police bureau. Thanks for this opportunity to be heard.

Dee Hawes - 09:16am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#86 of 119)

I'm sorry for the violence that errupted in SE Portland, on the 27th.

However, I feel the police went to the residence looking for "trouble" and found
plenty of it. They had no buisness being there without a warrant. Our constitution
prohibits against unreasonable search and siezers. In recent years this reasonable
guarantee has been erroded and is becoming more and more abused by law
enforcement across this land of ours.

I am also tired of the rhetoric about officers "putting their lives on the line." Another
constituional guarantee is that a person is not required to involunteer servitude. The
offerciers know the risk when they put on the badge and a lot of them thrive on the
excitement. So, let them have their job satisfaction but do not try and lay guilt on
the public or get sympathy for doing their "chosen" career field.

I think that the news media acted very professionally and complied with all of the
police request. The only thing the police have to fear is doing something illegal and
getting it on film without their consent; i.e., Rodney King.

Gannon Murdock - 09:16am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#87 of 119)

I now see that it is necessary to legally restrict the news media. We need to realize
the absolute necessity for police officers. If, "Getting the scoop," ever becomes
more important than police control of a crime scene, we may as well shoot
ourselves in both feet! The role that we assign them, "Protect and Serve," is what
ensures that crime won't run rampant in our society. Until now, we have let you
make the decision of what is newsworthy. As of late, you haven't used the best
judgement to help the police do their jobs. Isn't it counterproductive to show "real"
violence to our youth? When you go to investigate a breaking story, ask yourself,
how this is going to impact our/my community? Will this hinder police efforts if I
report this? Boiled down, what's more important, "Freedom of the Press," or safe
streets under control of those who we hire? Thank you, police, you are greatly
appreciated! To the news media, shame on you, and be sure to use better
judgement. You and the police both want the same things. Try to work towards the
same goals, and we could actually win this war against crime.

Allan Schwindt - 09:18am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#88 of 119)

The news media, like most politicians often jump to conclusions and over-react
with a lot of emotion whenever a tragedy like this occurs. As professionals, this
should not be the case. With all due respects, the channel 6 team is better than most
from the Portland area. The reports and remarks about the firearms used and the
suggested solutions demonstrate exactly how uninformed most news-people are on
the subject of guns. In reality, the use of armor piercing bullets would have resulted
in the officer's death no matter what type of rifle was used. Further, if the reports in
The Oregonian were accurate, they said that one bullet passed just above and one
just below the vest of the officer. Either would have probably taken her life. I know
it is popular to think that the assault weapon is the root of the problem, but, it isn't.
Most politicians feel they can solve any problem by passing a new law. If this were
true, all our problems would have been solved years ago, Just remember,
"Criminals do not obey laws".

Almost never, have I heard politicians and the news media get concerned about the
reasons why so many people now feel it is OK to blow someone away as a
response to anything they don't agree with. We see this in the "road rage" problem,
"kids taking guns to school", "getting even with a baseball bat" and on and on. This
simply is not an acceptable response to something they don't like. This is the
problem that needs to be addressed, not the type of weapon they may choose to
use. Weirdos simply need to be treated as such, not coddled in any way.

For the record, I am not a proponent of Assault weapons, but, I am in favor of the
second ammendment.

(31 following messages)

(88 previous messages)

Debbie Hansen - 09:19am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#89 of 119)

I will never watch KOIN news again if I can help it. I have never been so offended
by the remarks of a reporter as I was by the remarks made by David Schmitke
tuesday night January 27. Mr. Schmitke had the nerve to be standing outside the
hospital where a Portland Police officer had earlier died, and another one was lying
in critical condition and had the nerve to compare his and other reporters jobs with
that of a police officer and implying that the media's need to get the story out there
to the massess on live television, is equally as important as what those officers were
doing at the scene of the initial shooting incident and subsequent stand-off. How
dare he compare the media's job with that of the police. I was so angered I almost
went and picked up my phone on the spot and called your newsroom to complain,
but I decided to wait and let a cooler head prevail.

Also, I think your news director and producers must be incredible dense about
Police Chief Moose's complaints about the helicopters. It doesn't matter that you
kept pulling back from the scene farther and farther away as the police kept
requesting, you were still using high powered cameras to zoom in on the scene!
Every time you put Warren Pietrie on live during the 8:00 hour that night, he kept
trying to justify your actions, amd when you came out of your reports Cam
Johnson would inevitably have some condescending toward Chief Moose remark
about how you weren't doing anything wrong, that is was just the super clear
cameras with the long range lenses. The point the chief was getting at was those
helicopters should not have been there taking pictures period! While the chief's
remarks were made out of the pain of losing another officer, a point you seem to
fail to grasp is that an AK47 has a range that if the idiot who was shooting and
killed the officer had started firing from upstairs he could have hit one of those
news copters from a good 5 miles away! What is your news directors backround
that he understands police strategy and tactics in such situations---how does he
know that with the zoom lenses he wasn't showing anything that presented a danger
to the officers involved? I'm under the impression in fact that the suspect was
sitting in his house watching the 'live' coverage!

I believe that KOIN owes an apology to the Portland Police Bureau for not only
Mr. Schmitke's remarks, but also for endangering the lives of the police officers at
the scene of the shooting before the suspect was taken into custody.

Marcee T - 09:49am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#90 of 119)

Channel 6, I watch your news every evening. Liberal media reigns throughout.
When you were done covering the Police Shooting (which I did find informative
and helpful) it was on with other things. It then became an attack on Guns. Who
should own them, why, and for what price? I am a member of the National Rifle
Association. You put 5 minutes of nothing but slander on guns and then say "Well
on the other hand.." And give that person 30 seconds. Good thing you didn't take
sides. Before you just ramble out something get all the facts. (BOTH SIDES)

Dick Mastbrook - 10:51am Jan 29, 1998 PST (#91 of 119)

It is important to have late breaking news. It may be important for commuters,
workers, etc. for their own safety and information. However, pictures on TV could
be detrimental to law inforcement, officers and even the public. How about a "black
out" for broadcasting video pictures during an episode, with circumspect verbal
announcements only. TV pictures may be taken but not shown to the public until
after the incident is over. This approach gives the public visual information later,
and does not give the alleged criminals information that could hinder police actions
and endanger the police and the public. There is a possibility that the visual
information could actually help police action, expecially from helicopters. Perhaps
technology could be developed (maybe it already is) to give them video monitors
for viewing the scene that would not be available to the public until after the event.
A cooperative effort between private media and public officials.

Stephem Greel Sr. - 12:10pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#92 of 119)

Keep the cameras on. If the News media is not our eyes, who will be? Do not
negotiate with the police on this issue. Stop the knock and ask policy. We are losing
our Civil Rights daily with this so called "War on Drugs". Education not
incarceration. Prohibition only breeds crime it did not work in the thirties and it is
not working now.

Brooke Hutchison - 12:11pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#93 of 119)

I am just going to make a few more comments on a few things I saw posted in
here:

Interestingly enough, most people are on the same wave length on how the media
covered this story - not just Channel 6 but all news stations in Portland. I find it
simply amazing that Lyle #40, Dancing Trout #80 and Dee #86 have the gall to talk
about police and cover ups. Hello, did any of you watch the news or have you had
run in's with an officer in the past that have made you feel this way? I, too, know
that there is a bad apple in every group. However, 99.9% of these people put their
lives on the line every day to serve us as a public-not to think about the next
"cover-up" they will be involved in. Some things slip through the cracks in police
work as well as any job in this whole world. That's reality!

How dare you (Dee) say that it's an "charge" for them. Yes, they love their jobs
and yes it is stressful at times but they are doing it for you and I. It is not a game!
All three of you should be thankful that they are out there for us and doing their
jobs and almost always, they are doing it RIGHT! I certainly hope that you will
reconsider your thoughts on how our police are daily and what they do for us.
Especially in this matter when the issues at point are the fact that an officer lost her
life doing what she did every day and typically, the media was to blame. It was not
something she did wrong.

Have a little courtesy to her, her family, the PPB and all who mourn the loss of
her. She may have been the one to save one of your lives in the future................

Gary Hammer - 02:01pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#94 of 119)

No one forces officers to do the job they do, but someone has to do it. Ms. Hawes
is tired of hearing about police risking their lives. Would you be better of if there
were no police? Someone has to enforce the laws we live by.

(25 following messages)

(94 previous messages)

m. l. martinez - 02:01pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#95 of 119)

I understand the media needing to cover breaking news. I also realize as with
everything there is a limit to how much. Chief Moose was obviously upset and may
have spoke out of emotion rather than fact. But what all of us has to realize is that
these people are out there to protect us and we have to give them the room to do it.
We all have the right to know what is happening on our cities, but sometimes being
live on the scene, from whatever distance in a chopper needs to be thought out...
Do we cover this for the viewers live or use ground reporters with pictures later?
The media in this area does a good job most of the time, although sometimes they
go to far and I think this is one of those ocassions. Mostly for the officers who
were trying to stay composed in a very difficult situation.

Richard Johnson - 02:30pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#96 of 119)

I would not want to live in a city or society where the Police got to control what
news got broadcast, or when. So far, it seems to me that all the Portland TV and
radio stations have bent over backwards to accomodate the police, even to the
extent of allowing the police to filter some of the information they receive.

I would like to see more acceptance of responsibility from all parties here. The
news media for rooting out possible hidden stories and motives--even on the part of
the "good guys". The police for taking the time to shut down power to a suspect's
house so he can't watch the news. And US for seening that whole, unbiased stories
get reported, and that -justice- not just law gets served in our community.

John C. Wood - 03:49pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#97 of 119)

I am a 25+ year veteran of the State Police, with several years of narcotics
experience in the mid-willamette valley. I was watching your coverage, and believe
that you may have a misunderstanding as to the concerns of many about the
coverage from the air. Your new "Toys" are an excellent way of covering events in
a timely manner, however, it isn't the distance that is the issue. At 2 1/2 to 3 miles,
with a 72-1 zoom, it doesn't matter how safe you are, or that you are complying
with FAA regulations. Your initial coverage was excellent, and didn't cause any
problems. But, when it is time for the tactical manuvers to begin, back off of the
close in shots.

Warren seems very professional, as I'm sure his photographer is, but I was
watching a segment, LIVE, when the PPB spokesperson was on the telephone with
your news desk, asking to have the video coverage of officers positions stopped.
He was being told that OUR helicopter is way out at 3 miles, while at the same
time, the SWAT van entering the driveway and pulling up to the front door of the
house was on the TV screen, showing the positions of officers behind the next door
residence. I love your station and its coverage, but, like Warren said last night,
work with the Police and become accustomed to the problems related to tactical
deployment, so that all can better do thier respective jobs. Thanks.

Tuck Putnam - 03:49pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#98 of 119)

I am appalled by the denials of wrong doing contained in your news broadcast and
continued in your article "FAA Says News 'Copter Coverage OK". To summarize
those statements from each of the major broadcast stations: We did not break any
rules or request and therefor we did nothing wrong. In particular, the above
mentioned article misrepresented Chief Moose's statement by saying that the FAA
contradicted Chief Moose. In fact Chief Moose was speaking of the live footage of
the locations of the police officers being broadcast and that those broadcasts put
police officers lives at risk. I believe all four of the stations with helicopters made
these live broadcasts. If this is not the case then I would find it very informative as
to whether your station did broadcast these images and if they did how long it was
before the were pulled off the air. These denials are an insult to the public, to the
police department, to Chief Moose and particularly to the lives of officers Waibel,
Keist, and Hudson. If your station was the most conservative, I would like you to
address those issues directly. Not by claiming that you were just following rules and
request.

Randy Jackson - 04:42pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#99 of 119)

I have very mixed emotions on this subject. On one hand I am very interested in
breaking news and current events, so I watch the news every day. On the other
hand I get SICK of each newsstation trying to outdo the others....I dont need 4
solid hours of the very same info and stations bragging about there helicopters and
so on. If I was on that swat team I would have been extremely ticked off at the
news coverage. Cheers to cheif Moose for his well deserved scolding of the media!

bruce reiter - 08:13pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#100 of 119)

the problem with the use of zoom cameras is now well-documented. Mike
Donahue's attempts to "inform" the public of his impression that the cameras had
somehow convinced the individual to surrender stretched his credibility to a surreal
level. When you're hot, you are hot, but when you're not, you are not. Cut your
losses and do better next time

Diann Norton - 08:13pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#101 of 119)

I think the air coverage issue is the same as KOIN's general manager's belief at the
time of the KOIN Center hostage crisis a few years back. That is to stay out of the
way at the time of need and to report it after the danger and to not give out any
strategic where-abouts of the police officers' positions. That is the reason why I
have switched to News Channel 6 to get my information and have stayed. Yes, the
public does have the right to know what is going on, but not at the sake of our
dedicated officers of the law who put their lives on the line for us every day that
they put on their uniform. These people are people like you and I who have
families and have chosen to make a difference. I think that in this sorrowful time of
having a second police officer killed in the line of duty within a six month period,
gives us a need to NOT fight with the Police department, but to work with them.
This will allow the community to best be served. Sincerely, Diann G.

(18 following messages)

(101 previous messages)

bruce reiter - 10:17pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#102 of 119)

Will KOIN go to court, if the Mayor's office restricts all news agencies' flights and
coverage activities in the Portland area? Are the owners of KOIN unable or
unwilling to control remarks, after the fact, by their salaried employees, or are the
employees stating the position of KOIN concerning the media coverage surrounding
the event?

David W. Rush - 10:21pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#103 of 119)

I must agree with most others on here. Your chopper should not of been showing
the position of the police for the whole world (suspect included) to see until after
the scene was secured. I also personally heard Petri being told to leave the scene
again (meaning he was obviously disobeyed their order before). Correct me if I'm
wrong, but isn't it a crime to not follow the instructions of an officer at a crime
scene?

I would like to know what army Donahue was in. I served 7 years in the United
States Army and the only weapons I was exposed to were the M16, M60, M1911
and anti-tank weapons. I was instructed to some extent on the AK47, but as far as
dealing with them, that never happened. AK47's as also M16's are not large caliber
weapons. An M16 is a .223 caliber which is slightly larger then any regular .22,
while an AK47 is a 7.62mm and is only slightly larger than a 30 caliber. Hardly
large caliber weapons. With me being a gun collector, enthusiast and studying
gunsmith, in my opinion, large caliber means anything .45 caliber and above. So if
you don't have a clue as to what your talking about, don't insult our intelligence by
acting like you do.

As far as more gun laws, I'm VERY GLAD I don't live inside the Portland limits if
Katz wants more laws. Criminals already know it is illegal for them to own
weapons and to use them, but does that stop them? NO IT DON'T! But if you
take away my firearms I will have no way to protect family or myself. I can not
rely on the police to protect us. Besides, it is not their job to protect us. Anyone
who thinks it is should look out their front door. Do you see an officer there
protecting you? No there is not. They can't be there to protect you. Anyone who
wants to depend on someone else for protection should have moved to Germany
back in the 40's. The Gestapo would have been more than happy to protect you.

In my opinion, there really is no gun ban on any type of weapon any way's. Any
law abiding citizen can own any type of weapon they want. All you have to do is be
willing to pay the price for the weapon and then pay the federal tax that goes along
with it. You see it all the time at gun shows. You say you want an UZI? an M60
machine-gun? All you have to do is pay about $2000 for the weapon itself, then
pay about $250 federal tax, and it's yours. All legal and above board. So you see,
the government is not banning guns, they are making money.

Our fore fathers wrote the Second Amendment for a reason. So the citizens of
America could protect themselves from ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic. If all
weapons were banned, then Uncle Billy's name would be changed to Uncle Adolph
or Uncle Fidel. So get a grip America, anyone who want's more gun laws and to
change the Constitution is not only ignorant, but also un-American.

David W. Rush

Ron Baugher - 05:58am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#104 of 119)

re: # 89

Debbie You have a right to an opinion but to state an AK-47 could shoot the
helicopter at 5 miles is ludicrous.

WAYNE FREIDIG - 05:58am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#105 of 119)

I would like to say that the person who did this must have been planning this
because a normal person would not do anything like this. I feel that the news media
did a very good job in reporting the scene by not showing the police and what they
where tring to do to end the stand off. On a scale of one to ten you get a ten

wayne

Ron Rogers - 06:01am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#106 of 119)

A female newsreader heard a neighbor report toys in the front yard of the
location..Newsreader stated there must be kids living there (Location)

This is not acurate reporting, its opinion....

putting toys in front area of residence is an old druggers trick, gets responce
newsreader gave......

Dennis H. Lemler - 06:38am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#107 of 119)

I agree with the general commentary I have read on this page. I want to make two
points. The first is twofold. I was upset that KOIN did not heed the request of the
Portland Police Department that they curtail the camera record of the house in
which Don was redoubted. Beyond that, KOIN conveniently left out the lambasting
Chief Moose gave the press for not honoring his department's requst to stop
broadcasting pictures that might give away the position of police at the Don house. I
think that the First Amendment carries an onus that should manifest itself in a
concerted effort by the fourth estate to protect it,and, an equally forthright sense of
responsibility for infractions relative to its application. KOIN, KATU, KGW, or any
other station could have eschewed the live coverage in the air for the sake of the
possibility that another police officer might lose a life. Ground shots or descriptive
commentary from nearby would have sufficed during the relatively short duration
of the seige. The TV News Medium is constantly raising a hue and cry about
people in the public eye taking responsibility for their actions. Should it not then
accept and air criticism of its actions by a prominent Portland official. Had I not
seen the live press conference where Chief Moose vociferously denounced the local
TV news organizations for their failure to withdraw camera shots of the house, I
probably would not have heard it. I was very disappointed in my favorite TV news
station's failure to acknowledge a crucial though negative opinion ( a First
Amendment protection ), and even more disappointed at its shrill defense of that
dangerous overcoverage. Secondly, the discussion of size and speed of projectiles
belabored the real point of the exchange of gunfire. Rapidity of fire can be more
dangerous than a more powerful weapon. Two dozen 22 caliber rounds squeezed
off in a matter of seconds, can, for instance, be just as leathal as a few large caliber
rounds fired at lever or bolt action pace. At close quarters, a barrage can out
perform pot shots. Why do assault rifles came as semi-automatic or automatic
packages anyway?

I sincerely hope that the local TV stations will curb their zeal next time a crisis like
this erupts. For my part, I will not watch until regular newstime.

(12 following messages)

(107 previous messages)

Joe Engel - 10:00am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#108 of 119)

I think that KOIN's coverage of this tragedy was terribly done and bordered on the
criminal.

Donahue's rambling and completely innacurate comments regarding weapons, body
armor, tear gas, police tactics, etc. reflected the worst kind of ignorant mindless
journalism.

The helicopter coverage with the stabilized Flir long range camera of the police
operations at the scene was criminal.

And then to claim some kind of moralistic high ground because "the other guys did
it too" or "we were following the rules" just adds to my contempt.

If this is what KOIN news really thinks is "Professional Journalism" then I think
your newsroom needs a big flush.

Richard Johnson - 02:00pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#109 of 119)

I cannot more strongly disagree with Mr. Joe Engel. It is the responsibility and duty
of the press to report what is going on, as best it can. It is not the duty nor the
responsibility of the press to try to protect anyone. If your coverage did indeed
endanger someone, then that is a civil matter not a criminal one.

Speaking of complete coverage -- How can Dons be charged with TWO counts of
aggravated murder when only one person was killed?

Terry Smith - 02:03pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#110 of 119)

I personally don't believe we need to hear every second and every detail of every
crisis that occurs. Frequent and brief updates would suffice. I find myself reaching
the saturation point, and using the 'off' button. The media has come to believe that
they have the obligation to bring us all information as it occurs and that we have the
right to hear it. I don't necessarily believe that is true. Others rights and safety need
to be considered and we can wait to hear the facts. Maybe if we do wait, they will
be facts and not the endless speculation that is the result of endless coverage.
Competition is the name of the game here and ratings - sad but true.

I agree with a previous post and hope the local stations will curb their zeal and I,
too,will gladly wait until the next regular newscast.

Dancing Trout - 09:02pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#111 of 119)

Hey there Ron Rogers - (#106) thanks for the tip. I just saw my neighbors toss a
tricycle and a doll out into the front yard. Do you suppose....

Back to the subject. Police departments everywhere have clearly demonstrated that
they when given an inch they will take a mile. One example is 'knock and talk'.
Presented as a way to make contact with people whom the neighbors have
concerns about, we see now that it is five police at the front and back door shouting
'police' then kicking the door in.

Can we give the police control over what news is allowed to be covered by the
press and what the people are allowed to see? The constitution of these United
States says a resounding "NO." I agree.

Val Codino - 09:03pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#112 of 119)

Thank you for your effort in keeping the 3 mile distance around the recent tragic
event in SE Portland. However, with as powerful of a camera that your aircraft
has, the 3 mile restricted air space still could have placed officers in danger. I
watched your live report start to finish and do not fully agree with your statements
of not showing any tactical live action of the police. I did see several live views
from your aircraft that did. Please reconsider your policys about zooming in on
events that involve a situation such as this. We do not need to increase the dangers
our brave men and women police offices face each day. As a firefighter/paramedic
working closely with law enforcement, I have heard offices say how distracting it is
to know a news helicopter airborne above the scene and possibly compromising the
situation.

Dave - 12:37pm Jan 31, 1998 PST (#113 of 119)

Criminal? CRIMINAL? What is Joe Engel thinking? What is truly criminal is the
fact that a band of Nazi's can kick your door in for smoking pot. Criminal is
everyone who wanted the drug war (you know who you are) you folks ought to be
deported for treason! Look at what you have done to this country! Criminal is the
government restricting press coverage of an event that happens regularly in this
country. The pictures the press took of another war 30 some years ago caused the
uprising of a whole generation of people who did not want the slaughter to
continue. I'm more concerned about REAL criminals who steal, beat, rape, murder,
and trample over your civil rights, including the ones that carry badges. Your
coverage should be increased on the streets, and when your anchors put on that
concerned look for the camera, perhaps someday they will be saying "Today marks
the anneversery of twenty five years of using war as a domestic policy in this
country, when will we learn that war is hell?"

David W. Rush - 03:20pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#114 of 119)

Unlike some others that posted here, I still watch channel 6 news. But I have one
question.

WHY HAVEN'T I HEARD ANY NEWS STORY ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN
HERE?

All I here now is about the officers and the suspect, and still talk about gun laws.

On the subject of more gun laws, here is what I have come up with when I read the
Constitution:

In my opinion, any gun ban is a direct violation to the Constitutions following
Amendments:

2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

(speaks for itself)

4th: "unreasonable search and seizures"

(seize our weapons for no reason)

5th: "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law"

(deprive us of our weapons for no reason)

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

(make laws they have no right to make)

14th: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of the citizens of the United States"

(abridge our privleges to own weapons)

And quite possibly the

6th: "to be confronted with witnesses against him"

(who saw US commit a crime with a gun?)

Aren't politicians sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States?

David W. Rush

(5 following messages)

(113 previous messages)

David W. Rush - 03:20pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#114 of 119)

Unlike some others that posted here, I still watch channel 6 news. But I have one
question.

WHY HAVEN'T I HEARD ANY NEWS STORY ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN
HERE?

All I here now is about the officers and the suspect, and still talk about gun laws.

On the subject of more gun laws, here is what I have come up with when I read the
Constitution:

In my opinion, any gun ban is a direct violation to the Constitutions following
Amendments:

2nd: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

(speaks for itself)

4th: "unreasonable search and seizures"

(seize our weapons for no reason)

5th: "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law"

(deprive us of our weapons for no reason)

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"

(make laws they have no right to make)

14th: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of the citizens of the United States"

(abridge our privleges to own weapons)

And quite possibly the

6th: "to be confronted with witnesses against him"

(who saw US commit a crime with a gun?)

Aren't politicians sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States?

David W. Rush

Dexter Beyl - 08:26am Feb 2, 1998 PST (#115 of 119)

I am sorry to say so, but I think that this latest incident shows that KOIN-Tv has
once again failed in bring Portland an accurate portrayal of breaking news stories. I
was shocked to see that NewsChopper 6 was the first on the scene and then
disheartened to see that all you did was repeat yourself. Not to mention that you
had a live shot from the helicopter even before it had arrived on the scene. That in
itself shows that you were too eager to gain rating points from this story. I believe
that it would be best for you now to apologize for the mistakes that you made and
pledge to try harder in these circumstances.

Dexter Beyl

WILL HAYDEN - 06:16am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#116 of 119)

WE LOST A LOT OF TROOPS IN VIETNAM DUE TO TV
COVERAGE.....NOW WE ARE LOSING ON THE HOME FRONT.. AND THE
POLITICAL FRONT AS WELL...CUT THE CAMERAS.. AND THE
GOSSIP...WHY WORK A STORY TO DEATH...THE SAME WITH THE
WEATHER...JUST GIE THE NEWS...5MIN AND ENTERTAIN US WITH
MUSIC AND FUN SHOWS.

Richard Johnson - 12:48am Feb 4, 1998 PST (#117 of 119)

Again:

Why **TWO (2)** counts of aggravated murder for one victim? Who is the other
murder victim? Where is (s)he? Was one of the two female officers pregnant at the
time of the break-in?

I have heard nothing of this from _any_ news outlet. Are there no reporters willing
to ask questions any more?

Jack Michael Hammer - 08:16am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#118 of 119)
Phoenix Performance

The problem seems to be the commercialization and over-sensationalizing of the
TV news media themselves. Each succeeding new generation of "TV journalists"
feels compelled to better the performance of their predecessors, a task not always
possible in every assignment. In order to increase the size of their audience, and the
concomitant advertising revenues, TV news operations nationwide are allowing the
needs of promotion, publicity, and profit to erode the once solid ethics of
professional journalism. Broadcast news was originally intended as a sort of public
service, without the profit considerations dictating the content of other offerings.
Today, they are depended upon to enhance the margins of both local station and
national network coffers.

This erosion sometimes hits ludicrous lows. Both nationally and locally, the "El
Nino" event has been hyped into a constant Jay Leno joke, thus negating it true
scientific validity. Locally, rarely do we see news coverage of any subject without
accompanying "live coverage", whether or not the subject requires it, or an
appropriate setting is available. Most often, this means a reporter standing in the
darkness on an empty street, reading from scribbled notes on a hand-held paper in
the rain, or some other content-empty setting, when an anchor's delivery would be
sufficient.

In traffic delays, perhaps some "live coverage" is useful, though hopefully, those
most in need won't be watching from behind the steering wheel. Do we really need
to see the landslide wiping away a West Hills home, or other personal tragedies, in
real time? What purpose was served by the irresponsible coverage of the KOIN
Tower "siege"? What was the journalistic expectation in "live coverage" of the fatal
"knock-and talk" in Southeast Portland? Were they hoping to film a police officer
(or suspect) being shot, or the bloody bodies following? Why have film coverage of
the sobbing, grieving victims of crime or accident, to the point of literally jamming
the microphone in the suffering person's face?

Do we really need helicopter fly-overs of the hospital where a wounded police
officer was brought? Does educational, interesting journalism require aerial views of
everything from empty streets at night to backyard trees? The incessant contest
between local stations regarding their acquisition of high-tech helicopters and "News
Rangers", is beginning to resemble the comical one-upmanship of the Pentagon
arms race of years gone by.

All of this "visual candy" has nothing to do with either the freedom of the press, the
public's "right to know", or even simple education. It is mere commercial sensation,
resulting in cynical disrespect for a necessary and valuable profession seemingly
bent on selling its sole to the highest bidder.

Monica Blackburn - 07:02pm Feb 7, 1998 PST (#119 of 119)

I think the media has gotten way out of control. I really don't care about who has
what helicopter and who has which weather system. The news-station wars have to
stop, each one boasting about who was on the scene first and who had the best
coverage. IT IS THEIR JOB. This is what reporters and journalists do, or are
supposed to do. I just think it's sickening to see the commercials about the stations
and their new shiny toys; they need to get back to the basics and the ethics of
journalism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]

The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.

Comments, questions and suggestions.

Next day's news
January 27 news page
Previous day's news

to 1998 Daily News index for January 22-29

to Portland NORML news archive directory

to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980127_KOIN_comment.html