Skip to content

Archives for ethics

See all posts in the network tagged with ethics

Another case of SMACSS – Social Media Assisted Career Suicide Syndrome. Watch video that has two Prince George’s County, MD cops fighting for their jobs.

6 comments

Click here to watch the video “Driving While Black”.

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

I credit the YouTube clip above with inspiring me to come up with a term to describe what I witnessed in the video and many other times in recent years: Social Media Assisted Career Suicide Syndrome or SMACSS. This video involves a story that first surfaced last week when Prince George’s County (MD) Police Department Chief Mark Magaw announced in a press conference that the two officers appearing in the video ”could be fired”.

The short film is titled “Driving While Black” and is a satirical look at the issue of racial profiling during traffic stops. As Chief Magaw described, the video uses “demeaning language, racial slurs, and crude stereotypes.” The latest development surrounding the video is that the head of the local chapter of the NAACP, Bob Ross, does not believe the officers should be fired. Here’s what he told reporter Andrea Noble of The Washington Times:

“I would agree with a  suspension rather than firing because they are young and  immature,” Mr.  Ross said. “If they had done  that without the uniforms and without the  police car, it probably wouldn’t have  been a big deal. … It really was  a good skit but when you have government  employees doing it, it’s a  different story.”

We likely won’t know whether these two officers end up losing their jobs until they get their day in court, or at least a trial board. Fraternal Order of Police President Vince Canales, who condemned the video during the chief’s press conference, told Noble, “These officers are entitled to due process and we are going to let the investigative process play out.”

But I have to ask this question: How can these officers really expect anything other than having to find alternative employment?

They used a real police car belonging to the department (likely a take home vehicle of one of the officers), real uniforms with the department’s patch and real department issued police equipment. They simulated traffic stops with lights and siren along public roads in public view as they appeared as actors in a video not sanctioned by the department. The video spoofs a real concern that police are having to deal with nationwide and one that has been a source of serious image problems for the officers’ own department for decades.

I ask again: How can anyone expect to hold onto their job after doing all that?

And I have another question. How did they think they were going to get away with it once the video was posted on YouTube or distributed by other means?

I think I already know the answer to question two. All rational thinking seems to go out the window for too many people when it comes to social media. They somehow have been led to believe that whatever they want to put on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter is just fine and should be without consequence. And when it involves someone in public safety, they often give the impression they believe there are no special responsibilities that come with being a police officer, firefighter, EMT or paramedic.

Let me make it clear that this column isn’t really about these two officers or the video ”Driving While Black”. What I am writing here should not be seen as an opinion or a prompt for a discussion on the issue of racial profiling. My focus is on this video being the latest outrageous example of SMACSS. While this one may be especially sensitive for some because the topic of the video involves race, SMACCS cuts across many other topics and impacts public safety workers of all races, creeds, religions and ethnic origins. Just click on this link and scroll down. You will see plenty of other cases STATter911.com has covered where careers have been cut down because of bad judgment in using social media.

The best I can tell is that the underlying cause is pretty universal among law enforcement, firefighters and EMS who have contracted SMACSS. It comes from a belief that a person can post whatever they want, whenever they want. Uniform and public trust be damned.

While legislation in the form of a department’s social media policy may catch some cases before they happen, there is really no known cure. As long as there is social media and the Internet there will be those who can’t avoid contracting SMACCS. But it can be prevented through education.

It’s a really simple lesson, though a hard one to follow for those who were brought up to believe that everything in their lives must be shared with the world. But once they can fully understand and accept that there are legitimate ethical and legal issues where social media and public safety intersect, the chances for a long career will increase, while at the same time the likelihood of catching SMACSS will decrease.

Good luck.

Posted by on November 20, 2012 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Major Incidents, News, PIO, Police, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Suspensions & demotions of ‘top responders’ upheld after Bel Air, MD Sonic Facebook shakedown. Termination of one firefighter pending.

4 comments

Image from Bel Air VFC website.

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Previous coverage of Bel Air VFC story here, here & here

The disciplinary process is mostly over following the incident in Harford County, Maryland where members of the Bel Air VFC posted comments to a members Facebook page about the local Sonic not providing discounts to firefighters. The case has prompted scrutiny of policies on freebies and social media.

Bryna Zumer, ExploreHarford.com:

Four Bel Air Volunteer Fire Company firefighters, who were suspended and/or demoted for their improper Facebook posts, have lost appeals of the disciplinary actions, Chief Eddie Hopkins said Monday.

An appeal for a fifth firefighter, who is facing termination from the volunteer organization, is still pending before the board of directors, according to Hopkins.

“What’s disappointing is these are some of my top responders, my seasoned people, which makes this much more difficult to deal with,” he said. “They’re guys who may not be in the top 10 or 20 [responders], but they are consistent guys who I can rely on.”

According to reporter Zumer, three of the five firefighters were reduced in rank and fourth will be on probation for six months. The suspensions of three firefighters were for 30 days.

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Posted by on June 26, 2012 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Major Incidents, News, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it ethical for firefighters & police officers to accept freebies? The Bel Air FD Facebook incident has reporters checking policies regionwide. Some tips from Dave.

25 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Previous coverage of Bel Air VFC story here & here

In the past, STATter911.com has warned about trends in news stories that end up becoming issues for fire departments across the country. Most of these have been about budget concerns like claims of excessive overtime, sick leave and shift swapping. There have been clear patterns in how those stories evolved in multiple jurisdictions across the country. Often they’ve hurt the image of firefighters (even when there has been no wrongdoing). Here’s my latest warning. Is a free cup of coffee the next one to bring unwanted scrutiny to your department?

It’s happening around Baltimore, Maryland right now. The Baltimore Sun is asking questions about policies for public safety employees accepting free food and drink. This began with the story we brought you from Harford County, Maryland where the Bel Air VFC took strong disciplinary action against some of its members who complained on Facebook that the local Sonic provided discounted meals for police officers and the military but not firefighters.

This has the Sun’s reporters asking other local jurisdictions, and ethics experts, some tough questions on the subject. Here’s an excerpt from yesterday’s article by Colin Campbell:

Such freebies are as old as jokes about police and doughnuts — and cups of complimentary coffee. Many restaurants and convenience stores give uniformed police and firefighters discounts to thank them for their service — and even encourage them to frequent the establishments and provide unofficial security. Some have store policies that guarantee the perks.

But police and fire supervisors say public servants must walk a narrow line to ensure that such courtesies don’t create an expectation of preferential treatment on either side.

Previously, ExploreHarford.com (affiliated with The Baltimore Sun), in an article by Bryna Zumer and Kayla Bawroski, looked beyond Bel Air to the rest of Harford County:

The Harford County Sheriff’s Office, meanwhile, does not allow its members to accept discounts, nor does the Maryland State Police, and at least two of the three municipal police departments in Harford set some standards regarding acceptance of discounts or gratuities.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has a clearly stated policy in the Abuse of Law Enforcement Powers or Position section of its Model Policy On Standards of Conduct:

“Officers shall not use their authority or position for financial gain, for obtaining or granting privileges or favors not otherwise available to them or others except as a private citizen, to avoid the consequences of illegal acts for themselves or for others, to barter, solicit, or accept any goods or services (to include, gratuities, gifts, discounts, rewards, loans, or fees) whether for the officer or for another.”

It also states: “Officers shall report any unsolicited gifts, gratuities or other items of value that they receive and shall provide a full report of the circumstances of their receipt if directed.”

I am not posting this to tell you what your policy should be. My point in sharing articles like the Bel Air VFC incident is to get you thinking how this may relate to your department, whether it’s a policy on social media, asking for a fire department discount, or dealing with the news media.

My advice for fire service leaders on this topic is the same as for the budget related stories I previously wrote about:

  • Get your house in order now before a reporter starts asking questions
  • Take corrective action on abuses you uncover
  • If you believe any problems you discovered are likely to become news consider breaking the news yourself
  • Be able to publicly defend your policies
  • If you are unable to publicly defend it change the policy

Posted by on June 19, 2012 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, News, Police, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What gives? No outrage over ghoulish photographers shooting bodies. Has something changed in year since Connecticut trooper blasted cameraman?

70 comments

More from STATter911.com on cameras and firefighters, EMS and police

 Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit "like") 

Since our first year of publishing STATter911.com we have had a variety of postings about cameras at the scene of emergency incidents. With it has been an ongoing conversation with you, our readers, about the ethics, rights and responsibilities of the press, public, victims, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics and police officers.

That conversation was bumped to a new level a year ago this month with the video above of a trooper with the Connecticut State Police screaming at a freelance news photographer shooting a fatal car fire from behind a guard rail on I-95. There were 165 comments, many of them from me, as we went back and forth over the actions of the trooper and the man behind the camera. (Click here and scroll down for the comments.)

Many of you, like the trooper, thought the cameraman was a ghoul and I was equally evil for defending him. I asked a lot of questions from those who took the trooper's side and blasted the videographer and me.

I tried to understand what was so offensive about the video. As you look at the raw footage above, the only thing you see is a burning car. As I have asked from the start, since when is shooting a car fire that shuts down a highway taboo?

In fact, maybe something is wrong with me (many of you have said as much), but the only thing I found offensive were the actions of the trooper. Not only was the trooper rude and insensitive to someone doing their job, he overstepped his bounds, acting as an editor or censor of what the public is allowed to see. Many of you made excuses for the trooper and I agreed it is just possible he was having a bad day. As for the videographer, despite all the name calling by our readers, no one pointed to any evidence that he didn't do his job professionally and treat the trooper with respect.

Taking in all of the comments and studying them closely, I came to my own conclusion of what was actually fueling the outrage. Despite what many wrote, this was not about being sensitive to the victim and her family. Though I do think that some of you sincerely believe in your hearts that was the case. I contended then and am even more convinced now (based on what I am about to show you) that most of those defending the trooper are willing to let a uniformed agent of our government decide what's appropriate for us to see, First Amendment be damned, because of a hatred of, or bias against, the press.

I have known for a long time how despised the news media is, but reading the reaction to this video actually made me fear a bit for the future of  our country. Even if I strongly disagreed with the actions of the photographer, I wouldn't want the police or any other government agency to be the decider of what we can see in a public place.

Besides the First Amendment issue, I also believe that there is a natural tendency for people to side with the authority figure. He's a cop, so he must be right. I get that, but again respectfully disagree that our government is always right.

So, why am I bringing this up now?

Take a look at the videos below. All have been posted on STATter911.com since October and were widely viewed, prompting many comments. Each one involves fire fatalities or critical injuries. Two videos show firefighters rescuing small children from burning homes. One clip is of a man being pulled from his burning home. Another has scenes of a man who later died collapsed outside a burning hotel. There is one showing firefighters attacking a fire with three bodies still inside. And there is also a video that shows efforts to recover a firefighter who died in the line of duty.

To me, each of these videos is a hell of a lot more graphic than what was shown in the Connecticut car fire video. All of the videos, except two, show victims in cardiac or respiratory arrest being treated by fire and EMS.

Despite the many comments posted with each of the videos, there is no one complaining that these photographers, like the one in Connecticut, are ghouls. We have no one screaming about victims' rights or HIPAA violations. And no one is telling me what a bad man I am for running these videos. Why is that? How can that be?

How can shooting a car fire bring such outrage while showing actual fire victims or being up close and personal at a fatal fire not even bring a squeak?

I believe the answer is pretty simple. In these videos there was no authority figure on the scene, like the police officer in Connecticut, overstepping his or her bounds and fueling the fire and passion against the photographers.

What I attempt to do with every conflict I see or am involved in, is to boil down what it's really about. Despite all of the claims last year of protecting the victim (which I believe those in public safety can do without trampling on our freedoms), I am left with the conclusion that, without someone yelling at a photographer, or reminding us of our hatred of the press, we generally just sit back and watch these videos without a great deal of disgust, anger and outrage. Am I wrong?

December 10, 2011: Two children rescued in Lake Station, Indiana. Mother died.

December 9, 2011: Two children rescued in Wilmington, Delaware.

October 9, 2011: Fatal hotel fire in Whitehall, Pennsylvania.

November 30, 2011: Man rescued from home in Whitehall, Pennsylvania.

December 12, 2011: Triple fatal fire in Stevens, Pennsylvania.

December 8, 2011: Firefighter Jon Davies killed in Worcester, Massachusetts fire.

Posted by on December 18, 2011 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Cameras & firefighters, EMS & police, EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, News, PIO, Police, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A must see example of leadership & handling the bad news. Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Brian Cummings uncovers dirt & then punishes himself.

10 comments

Previous coverage of this story from FireTruckBlog.com here & here

By now I am sure you are all aware of the recent to do involving the Los Angeles Fire Department and female porn star Charley Chase. It was sort of old news when a Los Angeles TV station uncovered the video of Chase posing naked on an LAFD rig. The video had been made in 2008 and the fact that it was that long ago put it beyond the statute of limitations for disciplining the firefighters involved.

Now, comes word of an even older incident. One that occurred 13 years ago. And it involves the current LAFD chief, Brian Cummings. Cummings was the captain of the Venice fire station when the firefighters asked a bikini clad woman walking by to pose with them. According to KTTV-TV, at least one photo was taken of the woman appearing topless while on the fire truck.

So, who broke this news? Who was dredging up this dirt on a fire chief who took office just a month ago? The best we can tell from the articles we've read so far, the answer is Brian Cummings. Yes, it appears the chief blew the whistle on himself. In addition, despite the incident being well beyond that two year statute of limitations, the chief has also punished himself. He will be doing 120 hours of community service at a women's shelter and a youth mentoring program.

Here's some of what Chief Cummings had to say (from KTTV-TV):

"I apologize to the residents of Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa and the brave men and women of the Los Angeles Fire Department for this incident," Cummings said.

Cummings called his part in the photo incident "irresponsible and inappropriate" and said he came forward with the picture for accountability.

"This is an opportunity for a teachable moment," Cummings said. "To be able to use my personal experience of what happened to me to be able to help my young firefighters, to keep them from making the same type of mistake is invaluable." 

To anyone in a position of leadership who reads STATter911.com, do yourself a favor and take note of how Chief Cummings dealt with this situation. Even if it turns out that a reporter had been asking questions that brought this response from the chief (again, there is no indication of that at this point and, in fact, the chief said he self-reported this information to the department's professional standards division), the chief has shown great leadership in his actions and message to the department and has provided the rest of us with a great example of an extremely effective way to handle bad news.

Watch the video above and read the KTTV-TV and Contra Costa Times stories on the chief's announcement. Now, picture how this story would have looked to the public and his firefighters if Chief Cummings did what so many leaders still do when there is embarrassing news about them or the department (think of former Congressman Anthony Weiner). Here's what you don't see or hear in this story:

  • A reporter chasing the chief down the street yelling questions about some racy photos.
  • A reporter saying they have uncovered a department scandal.
  • The chief reading from a statement or issuing one through his press office and then refusing to answer questions.
  • A "no comment" from the chief or a PIO.
  • A "we can't talk about it because it's a personal matter" type statement issued from the press office.
  • A union president saying there is a double standard on how discipline is handled in the department.

What you do see is a chief in charge, admitting he made a mistake, taking responsibility, apologizing and then explaining his proposal on dealing with these type issues in the future.

There is a great deal to gain by releasing bad news yourself rather than wait for it to leak out to reporters. It allows you to take some control of the story and puts you ahead of the game in the ultimate goal of getting this news behind you so you can move forward. For this to be effective, it means you really have to come clean. If you don't get all of the bad news out, it can, and likely will, come back to haunt you.

Besides the problem of lawyers telling you not to say anything about a sensitive subject for fear it will cost you later in court, the biggest obstacles in handling bad news this way tend to be the ego and emotion of the person in charge (again, think Anthony Weiner). From what we can see in our vantage point all the way across the country, Chief Cummings had no problem with any of this. As long as there are no other similar skeletons in his closet that we are not hearing about, Chief Cummings has turned a story that had potential to seriously damage his career into one that will likely do him a world of good. 

Posted by on October 8, 2011 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, Los Angeles Fire Department, News, PIO, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nude fire station photos continue to cause trouble for Pasadena, Texas Fire Department three years after it was dealt with. A good reminder about social media ethics & just plain ignorance.

22 comments

Click above to see the story from KPRC-TV.

It sounds like the Pasadena (Texas) Fire Department brass made all of the right moves three years ago when they were made aware that nude photos were on the Internet that had been taken inside the firehouse. Posing next to a fire engine with just a fire coat barely covering her body, was the wife of a volunteer firefighter. Her husband had taken the pictures inside the station. The department parted ways with the volunteer and the chief thought the offending pictures had been removed from the Internet.

But the pictures caught the eye of quite a few on the Internet. All you have to do is put the phrase "Nude chick at Pasadena fire station" in Google and you will find many sites showing off the wares of the firefighter's wife with the Pasadena FD logo on the fire truck about chest high (something tells me most people won't notice the logo first).

Now, three years later, someone in South Africa sent them to Houston TV station KPRC. This brought reporter Amy Davis to Chief Lanny Armstrong's door. From what I can see the chief handled the interview exactly how it should be handled, directly and honestly. But it has to be frustrating for Chief Armstrong and others in the department knowing these pictures aren't going to disappear. Just as Anthony Weiner learned a few weeks ago, even something that was on the web for a hot minute before being deleted can come back to haunt you in a very big way.

As I have been saying for a while, there's a whole generation who have grown up in the digital age with the belief that everything that happens in life needs to be on the Internet. But that doesn't always mesh well with what happens in fire and EMS. It is important for fire chiefs and others to not only to set a digital policy, but to have discussions and training on ethics and social media.

Obviously in this case, even without the Internet, there were some pretty clear ethical lapses that you would hope a fire chief wouldn't have to go over with a new member or recruit. I am sure many fire chiefs reading this are adding this line to the personnel manual and/or department rules: No nude pictures of the wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, friends or strangers are to be taken on fire department property. And you would think that is one you wouldn't have to spell out. But as they say, you can't fix stupid.

Posted by on June 19, 2011 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Cameras & firefighters, EMS & police, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, News, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is this anything? Firefighters & cops under investigation in Fresno, California after posing with bikini clad models. Dave has some questions.

32 comments

I think it's possible my standards are shot and I've lost all perspective. I will be the first to admit that I see so many really bad things people in public safety are accused of doing that I am having a tough time judging the not so outrageous ones. That's the case with this story from Fresno, California.

In the video above, uniformed police officers and firefighters are shown posing with bikini clad models who were part of the Shine Car and Bike Show at Aldo's Nightclub in Central Fresno last Wednesday. The pictures were on the Internet until ClubFlys.com removed them from its website. KSFN-TV says that request came from Fresno police.

The Fresno city manager told the TV station if the pictures are real this could be "a clear violation of Fresno's public safety agencies' ethical and professional standards." A city council member said, "There's appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior and this just does not look good, so it needs to be dealt with appropriately."  The police chief says an internal affairs investigation has been started by the police department. The fire chief told the reporter to talk to City Hall.

According to the news coverage, the police officers were hired as security at the event and that the fire truck was waved down when the crew drove by the club. A model and the photographer said the police officers and firefighters initially declined to have their pictures taken with the women.

I am the first to admit that these pictures probably aren't the best image for public safety. Especially the one with the woman sitting on a firefighter's lap. Probably poor judgment. As we have mentioned before, it's always best to ask yourself how will this picture look for the department when it shows up in the newspaper or on TV.

But possibly because there is so much worse out there, I am having a tough time getting outraged over this one. Is it me? Have my standards dropped so much that I accept this?

And for those who take the opposite view and think this is just horrible, here are some questions: 

  • Should there be a rule that police officers and firefighters aren't allowed to pose for pictures if the citizens are dressed in bathing suits?
  • Should that be the case if your department provides public safety at a beach community?
  • If the women were wearing evening gowns with plunging necklines that showed a good portion of their breasts would that be any more acceptable?
  • Is it okay to wear a fire department t-shirt or uniform and pose with models at a fire convention?
  • Should firefighters and police just not pose for any pictures with the public?
  • What guidelines do you have in your department for this?

Yes, the cops and the firefighters in this case probably should have trusted their instinct and not posed for pictures. But my questions are an effort to try and bring into focus exactly where that line is they crossed. And I keep getting a bit of a fuzzy picture.

Posted by on June 13, 2011 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Cameras & firefighters, EMS & police, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, News, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The video: EMS crew gets the finger (actually two). STATter911.com gets the rest of the story. Now Dave wants to know should we even run it?

18 comments

Previous discussions of emergency scene photography & videography on STATter911.com can be found here, here, here & here.

My friend Rhett Fleitz posted the video above on his site FireCritic.com yesterday. I can’t say I blame Rhett for doing so. It is the type of video that most of the fire/EMS bloggers would run (including me) because it’s unusual and is probably of interest to our audience (and judging by the more than 100 thousand hits, it is isn’t just fire and EMS people interested in this one).

Rhett wrote the following:

Bonus Video of a patient at a house fire giving the medics the finger! This freakin guys is hilarious! I don’t have a clue what is going on here, other than firefighting is not one of them!

With Rhett not providing any background, I was curious about the story behind it. So I did a few minutes of research. 

It turns out the fire occurred in January of this year on Stewart Avenue in Nanaimo, British Columbia. As you will hear in the news video below, the man being wheeled out and putting on a bit of a show for the crowd is physically disabled. Firefighters found him in his cottage on the property and carried him to safety (seen on the video). Firefighters say they didn’t put water on the fire immediately due to a downed power line at the burning home.

To me, both of these videos are very interesting in that they bring up a lot of news judgment and ethical questions for both traditional media and those of us in the blogging world. I will admit, now that I know the man is disabled (something I am sure Rhett didn’t know), I feel a little dirty about running it. I am sure I will rightfully get criticism for posting it anyway, but my reasoning is that I want to illustrate this issue (some will call that a convenient excuse and I wouldn’t blame them a bit). But I don’t think running a video on my blog that is all over the Internet will necessarily cause any additional harm (more pitiful justification by Dave).

Maybe I have lost my hard edge since leaving TV in June, but I am even questioning if I would I have run the video in the news story of two firefighters carrying the man to safety. I know news directors who, upon learning of the disability, would be concerned about the man’s dignity and ordered that it not air or that we cover up the man’s face. At the same time photographs and video of firefighters rescuing people have long been a staple of the news media and are some of the most powerful images many of us have seen. The dignity of the victims in those pictures is usually not a topic of discussion. 

In previous postings (see links above) many of you think there should be restrictions on showing stuff like this, or wrongly believe it is a HIPAA violation (if this was in the U.S.). Others have pointed out the news media often sanitizes things too much and we should show the public what it’s really like. Usually I fall in the “show the reality” category. The “reality” for fire and EMS bloggers could include video of a guy shooting the bird to an EMS crew (something TV news isn’t likely to show).

Let me be clear that I absolutely defend the right of both photographers to shoot the video and to air or post it. The same goes with what Rhett and I have done. To me the question of, “Can you do this?” isn’t even up for debate. It’s a question of should we. 

With 38 years in the news business I have had to make a lot of these decisions. Some are easier than others. This one has me a bit stumped. What do you think? 

Posted by on December 5, 2010 • Filed under: EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, Fires, News, Patient Management, Rescues, Social Media, Reputation Management, News Media, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quick Takes

4 comments

Twice in eight hours: Edward Malik reports Gary, Indiana firefighters responded for two fires yesterday in a vacant home in the 4700 block of Washington. One was a day time fire, the other at night.

One of the more interesting postings I have ever seen on a fire & EMS blog. Make sure you read it: To me the worst blogs are those that spout some company line, refuse to publish comments that disagree with the blogger’s point of view, usually state the obvious, believe the answer is always black or white with no gray area and stay away from anything that might smack of controversy because it might be perceived as critical of what fire and EMS crews do (I think I just described my own blog). The exact opposite of this is the most recent posting by Jeff Bressler at The Fire PIO. It is titled, A PIO’s ethics dilemma: Spinning a point he does not believe in. A fascinating look at the problem facing a PIO for a Long Island fire department. It looks critically at whether a fire department can justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a motorized drill team. The article shows how a public information officer may have to be the public face of a policy they disagree with. This is the reality of being a PIO. It isn’t just responding to fires and getting your mug on TV. I am eager to read more columns like this from Jeff.

A closer look at the death of Boston’s Lt. Kevin Kelley: A board of inquiry released a 127-page report looking at the January 9, 2009 crash of Ladder 26. Click here to read the report.

FDNY not allowed access to Freedom Tower to assist with injured worker: Some tension at Ground Zero between the Port Authority and FDNY. News reports indicate most of the FDNY units were not allowed access to the site when a worker fell two stories. Read more about the dispute.

Firefighter passes out behind the wheel of fire engine: In Nevada County, California they are saying the problem was one of dehydration when a firefighter on the way to a hospital to pick up his partner blacked out. Read the details.

Impostor FMs: It was two months ago that we showed you video of  a man in the Washington area posing as a fire inspector as a cover to steal from businesses. Now, Firegeezer Bill Schumm has a similar story from Chicago.

Accused firefighter arsonist has charges dropped: We covered this odd story from Indiana when charges were placed a little more than a-year-ago. A Lafayette firefighter was accused of setting his Battle Ground home on fire in October, 2008 and then ripping a firehose out of the hands of firefighters and knocking off the helmet of a firefighter. Now, the arson charge has been dropped. Eric Tendam was fired a month after the charges were filed.  Read the details.

Arson charges placed against firefighter: In Penn Township, Pennsylvania a farmhouse fire is being blamed on Eric Penska, a volunteer from Irvin Borough, and two others. Read the story.

Lots of fire in Rochester, NY: Click here for fireground audio and early video of a house fire Sunday night.

Medic died of heart attack: After some early misinformation the official word is that Daniel McIntosh died of a heart attack while chasing after a suicidal man. Click here for more on the Bensalem, Pennsylvania paramedic.

 Old home burns in Maryland: One firefighter from Montgomery County suffered a second degree burn to his leg fighting this fire yesterday in a late 1800s home in Poolesville. Check our player at the top right for more videos from the Washington area and around the country.

Posted by on March 9, 2010 • Filed under: Administration & Leadership, Apparatus Wrecks, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Arson, Firefighter Safety & Health, Firefighting Operations, Fires, Gary Fire Department, Montgomery County Fire Rescue Service (MD), News, PIO, Videos • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,