My apologies, this is long. I had an unsettling experience today and wanted to get some takes from journalists.

My family lives near the East Palestine train derailment in Ohio. I used to work as an environmental scientist, and while I am not a journalist I’m very interested in documenting this event. I have a pretty nice mirrorless camera and wanted to photograph a large fish kill downstream from the derailment site, as well as get some water samples for VOC analysis. By complete coincidence, I happened to pull up to the site at the same time as a vehicle marked as an environmental consulting group that I quickly recognized (it’s a pretty large firm and I actually used to work on projects with them).

I didn’t really pay any mind to their vehicle. Since I recognized them as consultants I assumed they’d get out and start sampling the stream (again, full of dead fish), and since I was in a public space outside the evacuation zone I assumed I had nothing to worry about.

When I stepped out of my car with my camera, someone who I’m assuming was the manager of the group blocked my path and asked if I was media. I told them no, that I simply lived nearby and wanted to photograph the fish kill. They informed me that if I was media there to film them while they sampled I would be arrested by the national guard who were posted up the road closer to town, and they had already been put on standby once they saw the camera. They told me they were an independent third party hired by Norfolk Southern.

The situation felt extremely uneasy, and it took some convincing to get them to believe I was not media. Eventually I found common ground with them by explaining that I understood what they were doing, worked in a similar job before, and had no intent to film them. When they were convinced I was not a journalist they eventually took a more friendly tone and asked me to wait until they left to photograph, which I did.

Before they left, the same manager encouraged me to call Norfolk Southern’s contracted toxicologist for information on water testing and gave me their number. They were pretty adamant on me having it and encouraged me to not get “caught up in fear mongering.” They left and I got my shots.

I was honestly so focused on diffusing the situation (and saying what I needed to get them to quit alluding to arrest) that I didn’t really process the reality of what they told me until a bit after.

So, if you made it this far-

Isn’t detaining media from filming something like this extremely illegal? If I was media, wouldn’t I have had the right to be there? Are there special circumstances where this is permissible? Should I be reporting this somewhere?

I want to believe they were there to independently and thoroughly analyze this obviously polluted water. They expressed empathy for the community and said they understood my concern. However, the whole thing really unsettled me. I had a relative with me during all of this (they mostly kept a quiet and hung back) but no recordings of our exchange.

Thanks in advance.

https://www.reddit.com/user/lergx574

https://reddit-user-analyser.netlify.app/#lergx574

Long-established account that doesn't post in any bullshit or conspiratorial subreddits.

edit: From their comments-

I was shooting from the road (parked on the shoulder, which was very wide).

The consulting group was EnviroScience, Inc.

  • Kumikommunism [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Ah, that was the only comment I saw earlier that was like that, so I assumed that was yours. And yeah I agree about the wording.

      • JoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        You got a reply in which someone assures you that they've never experienced bias with no regard for the pre-selection for bias that comes with getting the job or the narrow viewpoints they hold that happen to align with their employer's definition of reality.. Like something straight out of Inventing Reality.

        • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I wish I read this before responding because that's basically what I said but talking about the ideological requirements to be hired and the phrase selection bias would have been good

            • GorbinOutOverHere [comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              y'all need to be dropping in on there with this shit, every time I get set onto Reddit by some Hexbear post I'm in the trenches alone

              • JoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                lol, I do need to make another account for this crap. But also, I'm not sure how well this tactic is really usable. I'd much more recommend dropping related resources for people to click on than getting into it with an individual who isn't going to listen to what you have to say anyway. Then it becomes useful because you can have people upvote the resource post and give their endorsements that help add legitimacy to the arguments while downvoting the haters.

            • Wertheimer [any]
              ·
              2 years ago

              "What goes up, must come down"

              "Your inability to understand that not everything is absolute and there are exceptions to your own biases makes this tedious."

          • Wertheimer [any]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Relevant anecdote, from https://equalityalec.substack.com/p/how-the-media-enables-violent-bureaucracy-bc9

            In 2021, I raised concerns about the articles to some of the New York Times reporters who wrote one of the stories. Several reporters were respectful and engaged with me, including having a productive meeting at which it appeared to me that the small group who met with me was skilled, experienced, and well-intentioned. There’s a lot more to say, but I want to highlight the main aspect of one reporter’s first written response to me before our meeting: “I don’t write editorials or opinion pieces. This story was really about what these reports said.”

            There are two interesting aspects of this response. First, the second sentence is revealing. In it, the reporter was asserting to me that the kind of critique I was suggesting—one with accurate historical context and cognizant of ideological bias around words like “mistakes” and “missteps”—was considered an opinion piece. This often happens: critiques that challenge conventional wisdom are seen as lacking “objectivity,” while reporting based on certain premises, however absurd and contrary to the evidence those premises are, is seen as “objective” so long as it parrots conventional wisdom among certain subcultures of the professional class.1

            Second, and this becomes vital after you’ve read the next section, the reporter was telling me that the story their editors chose to write was actually not a story about the police violence or its true causes or its true solutions, but a story about what official reports said were its causes and solutions.

            • Kumikommunism [they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              There's actually a third thing worth noticing. "This story was really about what these reports said", while contrasting with opinion pieces, implies that they were just conveying information second hand, with absolutely none of their own biases or thoughts present in the writing. But the only way that is possible is one-to-one copy and pasting the reports. As soon as you edit, remove, or add anything, you, personally, are affecting the writing with your opinion. This is one of the basics of journalism (closely tied in with the idea of primary, secondary etc. sources) , and it says a lot that a reporter in that big of an org could say something that obviously stupid and anti-journalistic but still believe it.

      • Kumikommunism [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah your comment is much better. I think you're still bound to get similar brain-wormed responses (you kind already did lol).