I wrote Friday about how the arrests of reporters at the Occupy Wall Street protests raised questions about the NYPD press-credentialing process. In the case of one of the arrested journalists, Kristen Gwynne, a freelancer for Alternet, the issue was complicated by her open support for the protest. She did not really mind being arrested, she said, because she sympathized with the protestors and wanted to see how they were treated once in police custody. Alternet’s stated mission includes inspiring advocacy, and as such it is a different animal than, say, The New York Times. Still, you can’t have it both ways, and at the very least Gwynne’s case complicates the question of how police have treated the range of people at the protests who identify as reporters.
But in the case of Patrick Howley—an assistant editor at the American Spectator magazine who was pepper-sprayed while “covering” a protest at Washington’s Air and Space Museum over the weekend—there really is little to debate.
The Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm’s piece about the incident appeared under the headline: “Conservative Journalist Says He Infiltrated, Escalated D.C. Museum Protest”:
A conservative journalist has admitted to infiltrating the group of protesters who clashed with security at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on Saturday—and he openly claims to have helped instigate the events that prompted the museum to close.
Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, says that he joined the group under the pretense that he was a demonstrator. “As far as anyone knew I was part of this cause—a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator,” Howley wrote. (The language in the story has since been changed without explanation.)
Howley, in his original article (available here), describes actions that went beyond those of his fellow protesters:
As the white-uniformed security guards hurried to physically block the entrances, only a select few—myself, for journalistic purposes, included—kept charging forward.
And later:
I was the only one who had made it through the doors. As two guards pointed at me and started running, I dodged a circle of gawking old housewives and bolted upstairs.
The tourist reaction within the museum—like the reactions of those on D.C. tour buses and sidewalks Saturday—was one of confusion and mild irritation.
Little wonder, since the museum was closed as a result of the incident.
After all that, Howley squanders his frat-boy derring-do and concludes by taking up the mantle of the Wall Street plutocrats and their supporters:
What began on Wall Street is now spreading, and the question still remains: is it dangerous?
What a waste of some truly courageous reporting!
The version of the story that remains posted on The American Spectator’s site is evolving and can be found here.

So if a self-proclaimed "journalist" joins in to foment and further a commie cause, it's merely "inspiring advocacy" that "complicates the question" underlying the entire premise of you article - namely alleged abuse of journalists by police.
But if a self-proclaimed "journalist" joins in to undermine and mock a commie cause, then it's "frat-boy derring-do" that yields to "taking up the mantle of the Wall Street plutocrats and their supporters" when the "frat-boy" dares to wonder if these OWS Hissy Fits might turn violent.
I suppose it's merely "neutral watchdogging" to equate questioning whether these OWS things will become dangerous with "taking up the mantle of the Wall Street plutocrats and their supporters"?
No bias in you, is there, Erika?
And what happened? Was "plutocrat" the Daily Kos' word of the month last month or something?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 10 Oct 2011 at 10:44 PM
And just for the record...
I don't condone the actions of either of these hacks.
Neither of them are journalists - they're activists. If they worked for me, it would be their last day on the job.
I'm just noting the typical CJR selective tolerance for leftist hackery.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 10 Oct 2011 at 10:53 PM
I actually thought the article was soft on Howley whose actions were unconscionable. I think that a writer who is being honest about a point of view is at least playing it straight with their readers.
#3 Posted by Bernie Lunzer, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 10:56 AM
"I think that a writer who is being honest about a point of view is at least playing it straight with their readers"
Point taken.
It kind of begs the question - which is worse? Participation or infiltration?
I can see both sides of the issue.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 11:14 AM
I'd like to recommend again, as I did in another post, that the Columbia Journalism Review seriously consider monitoring their comment sections. If you continue to let people like padikiller spam your message boards, no one will ever read them and you'll never truly understand the views of your diverse and intelligent readership. Perhaps you can star commenters that make good points like they do at Gawker media. Or you can enforce character limits. Or you can have a dedicated moderator who features comments that makes solid, informed points. Either way, if this padikiller continues to post like this on all your articles, you're going to lose an important part of online journalism - engagement with diverse readers.
Right now, this padikiller just spams the same incoherent points over and over again.
#5 Posted by AJ, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 12:18 PM
Each side gets miffed when someone from the other side infiltrates them to mock them. Blumenthal did it on the left for a bit, as did Taibbi in his earlier incarnation. It's bad form, though maybe irresistible for young activists feeling their oats.
I think there is a line crossed when an infiltrator becomes a lead participant and tries to take the whole group on a violent path. That's quite a bit beyond mockery and I don't think any of the lefty journos have done this. Even--especially--folks of my acquaintance who infiltrated White Aryan Resistance meetings back in the '90s. (They were there to document, not mock, BTW). None of the left-wingers have gotten out in front of any "direct action" shenanigans, to my knowledge.
Guys like Howley and O'Keefe, who went undercover into a congresswoman's office to try to wiretap the phone and who later cooked up a bizarre caper to try to "seduce" a CNN reporter on camera (http://siu.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/our-documentary-takes-a-strange-detour/), are beyond mockery and even self-mockery.
(Speaking of self-mockery, even Michael Moore, whose "corporate crime chicken" was arrested at Disney World, never tried to start a riot).
I think it's probably fair game--if bad taste and bad journalism--to mock your subject in print or on camera. Wiretapping, break-ins and the like are something else entirely, and should be dealt with under another subject heading than "journalist."
#6 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 12:20 PM
correction on O'Keefe: he was merely "tampering" with the phones in Mary Landreiu's office and not actually trying to tap them. Pleaded guilty to misdemeanor.
#7 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 12:33 PM
Edward wrote: I think there is a line crossed when an infiltrator becomes a lead participant and tries to take the whole group on a violent path
padikiller responds: Yeah, but when an "activist" does the same thing with the goal of getting arrested -deliberately provoking armed police - she's also leading group on a potentially violent path.
Neither of these people are journalists, that's for sure.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 11 Oct 2011 at 03:35 PM
AJ's point should be taken to heart by CJR's editorial leadership. I have made the same point here, in the past. The commenter who calls itself padikiller is persistent on these pages and obnoxious in that persistent effort. The comments are ideological rants and have no place in an intelligent discussion. That padikiller, and that ilk more generally, can see their bile on this site only further incites them to double theri efforts to obfuscate the conversation. It's of little educational value to anyone.
The comparison between the descriptions of the actions of the two "reporters" is a false equivalence of their actions. Howley's actions, as described, are those of an agent provocateur, as such bordering on criminality. Gwynne, again as described, made no effort to distort the behavior of others or to instigate police activities. Padikiller can't see that difference in their behaviors.
#9 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 10:38 AM
Jack wrote: "Padikiller can't see that difference in their behaviors."
padikiller responds: What part of "point taken" can you not grasp, Jack?
What part "I can see both sides of the issue" escapes your commie comprehension?
It is a fair question to ask who is serving the readers better - a "journalist" who participates in partisan event with the goal of antagonizing police and provoking an altercation? Or a "journalist" who infiltrates a partisan group with the intent to mock it?
Neither one of these people is a "journalist" in my book, both are activists.
The only closed-minded people here are you and your commie brethren you seek to silence the opposition, as commies always do.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 10:52 AM
I see a trend forming here and I think you need a new category to capture it: things we complain about when people we don’t like do it
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 19 Oct 2011 at 05:28 PM
How about Natasha Lennard of the NY Times? Lisa Simeone of NPR?
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 27 Oct 2011 at 12:39 PM