The “tracker controversies”, ginned up and used by both sides in the Senate race, are immensely childish, and would be avoided by a modicum of common sense, adult behavior and decency.
First of all, the practice of having “trackers” who follow the candidate around waiting for them to drop a private F-bomb or careless remark, is stupid and insulting to the public. I know we on the left all celebrate George Allen’s scalp with the “macaca” remark, but truly, if you can’t win on the stupid, witless, dishonest and scandalous things people say in public — written into their speeches and into their public records — you’re not doing your job as a political operative. No. One. Cares.
Furthermore, if you’re a tracker, don’t stick a camera in someone’s face who is ancillary to the event, actively trying to cause a confrontation. Give people some personal space. That’s common sense and decency.
And if you’re being tailed a little too closely, try not to take the bait. Don’t threaten people — even if they’re being A-holes.
I don’t see why a political campaign has to turn into a middle-school recess showdown. I think everyone can grow the hell up for five minutes. Stop insulting the public’s intelligence. Stop turning a race with profound implications for the country’s future into The Jerry Springer Show.
I call on both sides to withdraw trackers — or at the very least for them to stay 10 yards away from the candidate at any given time.
UPDATE: I appreciate the wise points made by some of our commenters. I would say that a 10 yard rule would allow trackers to document public remarks, while giving a candidate plenty of space to speak confidentially with whomever they need.
With regard to the driver and Warren’s tracker: I do not approve of the driver’s behavior. But a 10 yard rule would make clear the distinction between tracker and stalker. Candidates and their aides may well understand how the game is played, but others may not, and feel threatened. If part of the game is to provoke people into angry outbursts — even if they should know better — then that’s beneath us, and needs to change.
Discuss
31 Comments . Leave a comment below.I disagree with your call to abandon the practice of trackers.
Trackers aren’t just looking for a “macacaa” moment. They are there to capture the campaign rhetoric that candidates feed to their base. They are there to make sure that a candidate isn’t telling his base that he is fully “pro-life” and will introduce anti-abortion bills but then telling the general electorate that he solidly supports a woman’s right to choose.
Why are they necessary? Because newspapers no longer do this function. Newspapers simply report candidate press releases. They almost never say “this statement is at odds with what the campaign told his supporters”. They almost never go to campaign events.
While I agree with this statement, it’s pretty clear to me that this is *not* what happened in this case. The GOP tracker is clearly filming Warren walking to and getting in to the cab. The cab driver is barely in the shot on the very edge and only because he is actively ushering Warren in to the car. While the tracker is still filming Warren, the male staffer says to the tracker “What do you say, Tom? Just think, only a few more fundraisers left.” (Very typical campaign banter between opponents staff).
Then, all of a sudden, the cab driver pushes the tracker’s camera and puts his hand to the lens. The tracker (pretty reasonably) says “don’t touch me” and the cab driver escalates the confrontation further by slapping the camera out of the tracker’s hand to the ground. The tracker remains pretty calm throughout, picking up his camera (and saying “Woah, really?” as he realizes he’s just been assaulted on camera). At that point, after being assaulted, the tracker does resume filming and focuses on the person who just assaulted him. The cab driver says “het out of my face, dude” and then resorts to the usual “you don’t know who your messin’ with” threats.
Thee way to have avoided this confrontation was not to eliminate trackers or demand they stay out of range of any possile assult (10 yards is awful long way especially for decent audio). Instead, the cab driver and other “victims” of being filmed should take your second bit of sound advice:
I’ve watched it again, and I think you’re wrong. If the tracker is close enough for the driver to take *one step* towards him to shove the camera away, that is too damn close, by any standard of common respect. And that’s what I’m calling for: Common respect.
The cab driver denies touching the tracker. He says the tracker dropped his camera.
I’m no attorney (I don’t even play one on television), but I’m pretty sure that the threshold for “assault” is putting someone in fear. I think if the tracker was touched, it adds “battery” to the charge.
I think the claim that the tracker dropped the camera is specious and embarrassing, and I suggest it not be pursued further.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here.
The tracker in this case did nothing wrong. It is a public event, in a public space, and involves a public figure. The driver flagrantly assaulted him.
In my view, the cab driver acted like a macho a-wipe who should be (a) immediately and publicly fired by the Warren campaign and (b) prosecuted by local authorities for assault.
As others have commented here, we live in an age where newspaper reporters and photographers are extinct. Trackers and “citizen journalists” are the only thing we have, at the moment, to fill the gap.
The driver’s behavior was inexcusable.
But if the driver was really a cabdriver or someone hired for driving on the island, how can they be fired? The Warren campaign can’t file assault charges for the tracker. They already called the confrontation “wrong.”
The Warren campaign can make it clear to whatever company they hired that the driver’s behavior was unacceptable — I suspect they already have.
I’m just saying that the tracker was not at fault here.
If an assault actually occurred, why doesn’t the tracker file charges?
And, what about the tracker’s behavior? Why is it necessary to tape a woman while she is entering a car? That’s not a public event. It’s an invasion of her privacy. There is no excuse for the tracker’s behavior.
The GOP should immediately fire the tracker for his bad behaviour.
Elizabeth Warren is a public figure, she was in a public place with no expectation of privacy. It is not up to the tracker (or any other photographer) to invent some “necessity”. The freedom to photograph in public is a long-established aspect of freedom of speech.
way back near the beginning of the campaign, I witnessed as asshole tracker getting in Warren’s face as she tried to have one on one conversations with constituents outside. Backing up five feet or ten feet he still would have gotten the damn footage, but would have stopped intimidating the poor person she was trying to talk with. I know I don’t feel comfortable with a camera shoved up in my face.
I do agree, the tracker thing, on all sides, is ridiculous. There are a million people at events taping the damn thing just by being there (smartphones), trust me, if something weird happens we’ll know.
Does Warren employ a tracker? I’ve never heard a peep about or against anyone from her campaign sending trackers or their behavior at Brown events (because I suspect they are less inclined to assholery) so I don’t know for a fact she does…though I imagine she does.
Trackers, at least in Mass, are not employed by the opposing campaign directly, but by the parties. Therefore, no tracker is on Brown or Warren’s payroll to my knowledge, but don’t quote me on that.
and they’ve been roughed up at a Brown event at least once, as I have already posted. For your viewing pleasure, here it is again.
I think the original idea was intelligence gathering, but I would assume now that it’s all about getting a sentence (which can be used out of context) or even part of a sentence to use against the candidate.
It’s part of a trend. Celebrity picture taking has been crowd sourced to packs of young people who hang out in every conceivable place with digital cameras, mostly looking for crotch shots as celebrity women get out of cars.
The news business has become a mass of quasi-journalists which has increased volume but forced you to do your own filtering.
I don’t think there’s any going back, unfortunately. What is the advantage of a tying your own hands while the other swings away? Even a campaign to campaign agreement wouldn’t stand up as any person could do this and post it.
“I know we on the left all celebrate George Allen’s scalp with the “macaca” remark, but truly, if you can’t win on the stupid, witless, dishonest and scandalous things people say in public — written into their speeches and into their public records — you’re not doing your job as a political operative.”
I disagree with this sentiment. Whenever you have a candidate doing something bad – in terms of effecting the campaign it’s almost always a bigger effect if you have video. That’s the nature of the media. I seriously have to wonder how far the Allen then would have gone without the video.
I’m not sure I understand the objections to tracking, I think it’s a good thing. Yes, of course, nobody should be able to intimidate a candidate or voter by shoving a lens into their face. That was not the case in either of the clips presented here.
For better or worse, we live in an era of video surveillance. We rely on video cameras to identify and help capture thieves, hit-and-run drivers, and similar crimes. We also rely on video cameras to identify and help prosecute rogue policemen, security guards, and (sadly) public officials.
George Allen’s “macaca” remark was offensive because it was so racist, not because it was caught on camera. When candidates do and say offensive things, it is their behavior that is the problem — not the trackers or journalists reporting it. If the overall effect is to squelch such behavior, I think that’s a good thing.
I’d like to believe that the result of all this will be to differentially reward candidates who are not racist, sexist, and bigoted — publicly or privately. In a Darwinian sense, I think society as a whole will benefit.
I can totally picture the trackers from the Dem side getting explicit instructions not to be jerks about their filming. The last thing the Dems want is an overzealous videographer being the news. I know too many people in the Dem party to think they would ever do otherwise but tell their trackers, behave, be nice, and respectful.
By the same token, I can imagine the trackers on the Republican side NOT getting this advice, and either directly, but more likely tacitly, getting the impression that they can be partisanly jerkish about their filming, as the Lowell event tracker was. This is the sort of bullyish behavior you come to expect from conservatives.
Also, how much of a “big deal” was the March manhandling of the Dem tracker in the news? I didn’t even know about it. Did it even make the Globe? TPM? If not, you can bet it’s because the Dem/Warren campaign isn’t as whiny and bitchy about such incidents…but witness how quickly the Brown campaign is to play the victim! Couple this GOP false statement about this incident (listing the cab driver as an aid?? please) with other stuff…things like “I think I’m pretty clear on where I stand. I don’t need Professor Warren talking or speaking or commenting on my votes” which (besides the faux-respectful dog whistle use of “professor”) basically says, “Wah! Warren has no right to talk about my voting record! Wah!” Among other comments. It’s like watching a bully running to the teacher crying because someone had the gall to call him out on his bullying.
Republicans = professional victims.
Their job is to capture something that makes the target look bad. How do you do a good job? By getting something good. Why wouldn’t they try to provoke it?
This just seems like an assumption that your partisans are angels, because they’re on your team.
It’s based on the behavior I’ve SEEN from their trackers, and the people I KNOW who are leading the campaigns on our side.
How else can you explain the behavior of their trackers? Invading personal space is, at a minimum, rude. At worst, it’s about intimidation. I don’t see our trackers being like that. I haven’t once heard that they were like that. In fact, in the assault on the Dem tracker David posted, he was trying to be very polite even while they were manhandling him.
[Apologies for not replying within the thread - regular reply still won't work for me]
I’ve watched it a dozen times now and tt’s clear to me that the driver completely overreacts here.
The tracker follows Warren down the driveway and then sets up, probably about 10 feet from the car (close enough for audio) and to film Warren getting in to the car. The driver is so close primarily by coincidence, since he is ushering his passengers in to the car, and then takes a few steps backwards (towards the tracker) to allow Warren to step in to the car and make his way around to the front.
Very quickly, the driver’s mood shifts and he takes a couple of quick steps towards the camera to aggressively shove the camera away and assault the tracker. You can tell by the staffer’s simultaneous engagement with the tracker in standard campaign chit chat that the tracker isn’t unusually close or intrusive.
To be clear, I don’t blame the driver for being annoyed. He’s probably not used to being filmed at all and, understably, feeling a bit like a bodyguard for an important client. Still, it goes beyond being disrespectful to assault someone who is just doing their job. Where’s the drivers “common respect” for the tracker?
Bottom line? The driver committed a crime. The tracker did not.
“The driver committed a crime. The tracker did not.”
that had the tracker given them more space — an adequate amount of space — the confrontation would have been far less likely to happen.
It is precisely my point that this ought to be evaluated on a different and better standard than strictly who did or didn’t commit a “crime”. I have a different bottom line.
and while I think that the candidates could mutually agree to have better behaved trackers [a la the Warren-Brown agreement on 3rd party ads], there are other methods.
Just as a tracker is free to stand somewhere, a candidate’s staff is free to hoist an umbrella. Or to shine a focused flashlight into the lens of the camera. Or to stand next to the cameraman with a white noise machine rendering the audio useless. Is it juvenile? Yup. So is standing a few feet away with a camera the entire time the candidate is in public.
***
On a side note, Massachusetts is one of (relatively) few states which requires two-party consent for audio recording. Now it’s true, public spaces have a different expectation than private spaces, but I wonder: if I, Stomv Citizen, am standing in a parking lot talking to Candidate Forsenate, and a tracker puts a camera (with audio recording) within a few feet, can I as Stomv Citizen state that “I do not consent to your audio recording” and legally insist that the audio recording cease? This is, after all, why CCTV doesn’t record audio — it’s legal to passively record video in a public space where there isn’t an expectation of privacy*, but it isn’t legal to record the audio.
* ie you can’t capture video inside bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
that when the conversation is happening in public, with a public figure like a candidate for US Senate, there is a 1st amendment right to tape the conversation that would override the MA statute requiring 2-party consent for taping. I could be wrong, but that’s my gut reaction on how that case would go.
I think the default is “yeah, tape” but, to clarify your gut’s reaction, you think that even if Stomv Citizen turns to audio recorder and states “I do not consent to you recording my words at this time” that the statute would be void because the person I am speaking too is a public figure?
It’s funny — seems like the person could tape Candidate Forsenate’s response, but perhaps not the audio of Stomv Citizen’s actual question…
Charliey suggest a very pragmatic and reasonable idea… just back off. In the process he unbiasedly describes a flagrant abuse of “tracking” and recommends punishment. Then the left can’t stand someone saying something bad about Dem trackers and proposes an idea that Dem trackers are nice but GOP trackers are yucky… Huh?
Out tracker was this… STOP IT.
Tracking is legal and will not go away, although I also think it should. Why can’t people agree on common sense and say these people cannot get in our face? On both sides!!!
It’s sad that every issue, however insignificant gets “partisanized”!
Did you notice that one of our leftiest lefties, somervilletom, is on the side of the GOP tracker in this case? Read before you bloviate!
I was referring the “other” defenders of bad behavior.
Tom and I are very far apart, but we do agree on the occasional did bit.
So both Charley and I, two of BMG’s three editors, agree that the cab driver was wrong and the tracker had a right to be doing what he was doing; somervilletom, one of BMG’s most prolific users and most left-leaning members, agrees; and yet somehow BMG is on the “wrong” side of this?
You’ll forgive me for being confused. All due respect, you are seeing what you want to see, and not what is real. But you’re not alone – it’s a common affliction with Republicans.
.
and, therefore, so are trackers.
Yes, I want to know when a powerful politician says “macaca.”
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 12:49 PM