Police Likely to Kill Media Copter Plan

Los Angeles police officials said they probably will withdraw from an arrangement putting them in charge of a media helicopter in exchange for providing local TV stations exclusive footage within a 1.5-mile-radius, no-fly zone over the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

The plan, which was debated by broadcasters and law enforcement officials in recent weeks, raised questions about the relationship between the press and police. Some feared that it would make local television a surveillance arm of the LAPD, while others said the arrangement was the only way to provide the public with aerial images from the federally imposed zone, established to protect the president and other officials.

“It’s become more complex and controversial than first thought and the Police Department has alternatives that do not necessitate such an agreement,” LAPD Cmdr. David Kalish said Monday. A final decision is likely sometime this week, he said.

Kalish said local broadcasters came to his department with the proposal, which would have given police control of a helicopter leased by KMEX Channel 34. Using that helicopter would have given police more flexibility in downloading images through a “dedicated frequency,” Kalish said.

Currently, footage shot aboard the department’s helicopters is downloaded on a shared frequency, requiring police to coordinate with others who also use it, Kalish said.

Some broadcasters, such as KTLA Channel 5 News Director Jeff Wald, blamed a Los Angeles Times article last week for the change in the police position. Wald insisted that the arrangement would not have been the “deal with the devil” that it was portrayed to be and that the cameras would not have been turned off at police whim.

“It really wasn’t controversial,” he said. “The only way we would agree to do it is if they agreed not to censor the video, which they did.”

But Kalish said the proposal “created a very healthy discussion” within the department. Footage in a “tactical situation that put our officers at risk” would not have been shot, he said.

Media ethics expert Jane Kirtley called the proposal “ill-advised.”

“It’s not appropriate for the media to be aiding and abetting law enforcement in their surveillance,” said Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “There’s an absolute division that has to exist between law enforcement and the press.”

Radio and Television News Assn. is appealing the decision, according to several broadcasters, given that most of the members were in favor of the arrangement. Association officials could not be reached for comment.