Emergency personnel advise against publishing scanner traffic

[x635 4,066]

You are literally hearing snippets of conversation, and its out of context. Its almost impossible in a short amount of time to figure out what the entire context is, McBride wrote.

One such scenario occurred on Sept. 21, when a small aircraft slid off a runway at Midland International Airport. The planes two occupants were not injured. Information regarding the plane was relayed over police radios, and the citys public information officer called it an incident. But a pair of television stations reported the incident as a crash.

“At one time, the Reporter-Telegram was one of the biggest offenders, but this is information that has not been confirmed by law enforcement authorities or journalists, which is why we stopped using scanner reports online and in the newspaper,” said Editor Stewart Doreen.

........He encountered problems associated with scanner traffic while working in the Dallas area. Isbell recalled people driving by scenes of accidents and fires to take photographs and upload them to the web, creating a social fever and information frenzy.

Donaldson said use of scanner traffic increases call volume for 911 dispatch centers. Concerned residentsand news outlets -- the Reporter-Telegram included -- have called dispatchers for updates on wrecks, fires and shootings at times when information is scarce. This impacts work efficiency and slows response timesfor emergency personnel. Often, people drive by the scene, causing issues for first responders.

Like the boy who cried wolf, Painter said this type of news coverage can incite panic in the general public and create additional problems.

Click here for the full article

This article mainly relates to PD and the media, but it does scare me that there are hundreds of Facebook groups that post word by word transcriptions of what comes across the scanner, and anything that comes across the scanner, most of the time the instant the transmission ends.

In effect, these sites are the "media", as reporters monitor those FB Groups for leads, and I've seen several recent examples of a group publishing an incident, the media publishing what they posted, and got some very, very wrong information out there that could have been catastrophcic. It's also amplified by one person with a scanner posting information that could potentially be read by thousands.

We do post Incident Alerts on this site, as we've done for over 11 years. Our members that post do monitor scanners, and a lot use other sources, like being on scene themselves. We have strict rules and guidelines on posting Incident Alerts, and would rather do quality over quantity and quickness. Facebook has really changed the game in many ways with "buffing".

Read more: Emergency personnel advise against publishing scanner traffic - MRT.com: Crime http://www.mrt.com/news/crime/article_3c17826a-c376-11e3-91d1-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz2zjvm8R3K

[bht5000 0]

As a journalism student as well as a volunteer EMT, I have very mixed feelings about this. However the reality is under the law ANYTHING said over our radios is public information. Hence why we can not give names or anything else. So it does not really matter what any of us think legally it is public information and fair game. It is up to the reporter to use his judgment and morals and decide what to report or not.

[antiquefirelt 994]

However the reality is under the law ANYTHING said over our radios is public information. Hence why we can not give names or anything else.

I think you should check the FCC rules and other laws as the pertain to the interception of radio transmissions and the "divulgence of information intercepted". The information we transmit in in reality "public" due to technology, but has been regulated as if it were private. In years passed we'd quote the FCC laws to reporters that would publish information that was only heard on the scanner, they'd usually stop pretty quick. See here: www.fcc.gov/guides/interception-and-divulgence-radio-communications

And you can give names over the radio, though it is discouraged almost specifically due to scanners. In our area some PD's respond to most EMS calls, you'll hear the sanitized "name free" version on the fire/EMS frequencies, and the full disclosure version when the PD units is sent. Basically the police have been operating under the assumption that HIPAA does not apply to them. Any information needed to enure proper care to a request for medical service is allowed under HIPAA. Using names is debatable as to the actual necessity, but some places seem to know the residents better than the addresses, thus they ask for the callers name (common in rural areas). In 2014 this means your EMS service maybe a little behind the times, but alas, no one's being cited.

Edited April 24, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[SteveC7010 58]

In my nearly 30 of 911 service, we saw the most scanner abuse from a very few media reporters. Generally, they were new at the job and overly eager to jump on stories. We'd send out units for an MVA with injuries and the news phone would ring immediately. They'd want the number of patients, severity, etc., etc. etc. We'd politely remind them that they really ought to wait until someone is on scene before demanding details. Most of them got the hint pretty quickly, but we did have to call managing editors every now and then to have them deal with abusers who wouldn't work with us.

We also told media loud and clear that there would be no information on police events until they were over. We politely reminded them that our media phone (direct to 911 supervisors desk) was a privilege, not a right, and that we had no problem ignoring their calls if they didn't work with us and follow our guidelines. The biggest factor in our favor was that if one reporter was being a real jerk, we'd inform the others that if he/she didn't behave, we would not answer the phone at all for a while. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing.

[PEMO3 523]

... It is up to the reporter to use his judgment and morals and decide what to report or not.

Problem is most reporters subscribe to the rule of writing what sells not what is morally correct or in the best judgement. If they feel the majority of the public wants to see it, even it is morally wrong or not in good judgement you will see it "leaked by a source on condition not being revealed", you know those shadowed figures with their backs to the camera and the scrambled voices.