Archive

ShareThis Page
Missouri no-fly zone targets media during Ferguson protests, tapes show | TribLIVE.com
News

Missouri no-fly zone targets media during Ferguson protests, tapes show

The Associated Press
| Sunday, November 2, 2014 11:40 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Mo., for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that authorities there privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.

On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police helicopters fly through the area — but ban others.

“They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” one FAA manager said about the St. Louis County police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. “But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAA’s Kansas City center said police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn’t want media in there.”

FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option that would accommodate that.

“There is really … no option for a TFR that says, you know, ‘OK, everybody but the media is OK,’ ” he said.

The managers then worked out wording they thought would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.

The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department — which responded to demonstrations in the aftermath of the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown — that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.

Police said at the time, and again as recently as Friday, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.

But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed “rumors.”

The AP obtained the recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They raise serious questions about whether police were trying to suppress aerial images of the demonstrations and the police response by violating the constitutional rights of journalists with tacit assistance by federal officials.

“Any evidence that a no-fly zone was put in place as a pretext to exclude the media from covering events in Ferguson is extraordinarily troubling and a blatant violation of the press’s First Amendment rights,” said Lee Rowland, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney specializing in First Amendment issues.

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta wrote in a statement Sunday that his agency will always err on the side of safety.

“FAA cannot and will never exclusively ban media from covering an event of national significance, and media was never banned from covering the ongoing events in Ferguson in this case.”

Huerta said that, to the best of the FAA’s knowledge, “no media outlets objected to any of the restrictions” during the time they were in effect.

In the recordings, an FAA manager urged modifying the flight restriction so that planes landing at Lambert could enter the airspace around Ferguson.

The less-restrictive change practically served the authorities’ intended goal, an FAA official said: “A lot of the time, the (lesser restriction) just keeps the press out, anyways. They don’t understand the difference.”

The Kansas City FAA manager then asked a St. Louis County police official whether the restrictions could be lessened so nearby commercial flights wouldn’t be affected. The new order allows “aircraft on final (approach) there at St. Louis. It will still keep news people out. … The only way people will get in there is if they give them permission in there anyway so they, with the (lesser restriction), it still keeps all of them out.”

“Yeah,” replied the police official. “I have no problem with that whatsoever.”

KMOV-TV News Director Brian Thouvenot said his station was prepared at first to legally challenge the flight restrictions, but was later advised that its pilot could fly over the area as long as the helicopter stayed above 3,000 feet. That kept the helicopter and its mounted camera outside the restricted zone, but filming from such a distance, he said, was “less than ideal.”

None of the St. Louis stations was told that media helicopters could enter the airspace even under the lesser restrictions, which under federal rules should not have applied to aircraft “carrying properly accredited news representatives.” The FAA’s no-fly notice indicated the area was closed to all aircraft except police and planes coming to and from the airport.

The day that notice was issued, a county police spokesman publicly denied the no-fly zone was to prevent news helicopters from covering the events.

“We understand that that’s the perception that’s out there, but it truly is for the safety of pilots,” Sgt. Brian Schellman told NBC News.

Ferguson police were widely criticized for their response after the death of Brown, who was shot Aug. 9 by police Officer Darren Wilson. Later, under county police command, several reporters were arrested, a TV news crew was tear gassed, and some demonstrators were told they were not allowed to film officers.

In early October, a federal judge said the police violated demonstrators’ and news crews’ constitutional rights.

The flight restrictions remained in place until Aug. 22, FAA records show. A police captain wanted it extended when officials were planning to identify Wilson as the officer who shot Brown and because Brown’s funeral would “bring out the emotions,” the recordings show.

“We just don’t know what to expect,” he told the FAA. “We’re monitoring that. So last night we shot a lot of tear gas, we had a lot of shots fired into the air again. It did quiet down after midnight, but with that … we don’t know when that’s going to erupt.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.