Brazilian Al Jazeera journalist Gabriel Elizondo, recently made a two-week drive across the United States in order to interview various people about the effects of 9/11 and how the attack has made a difference on Americans’ lives. Upon arriving in Booker, Texas, Elizondo found himself at a Friday night football game with one purpose: to interview and film students, parents and faculty and speak with them in regards of 9/11 and their views. He spoke with the principal of the school, who referred him to the superintendent, who then denied his permission to video record and talk with the fans. Elizondo left the stadium angry and confused, and later wrote a blog concerning the “disrespect” he had been treated with.
After reading Elizondo’s blog, Superintendent Michael Lee responded by writing a letter on the school’s website addressing each one of Elizondo’s complaints. In no way was Elizondo discriminated against, disrespected, or treated badly by Lee. After 9/11, the safety of the country and its citizens is top priority and it is expected that it will remain that way.
After explaining to Elizondo that he would not be allowed to film or speak with students, Lee handed his business card back to him, making it clear his business was not welcome at the football game. Elizondo proceeded to exclaim in his blog that this was “a true sign of patronizing disrespect. As if to say ‘I hate you so much and think so little of you; I don’t even want your dirty business card.’” This clearly shows that Elizondo was simply upset that he was not getting his way and therefore exaggerated the entire situation, victimizing himself to get the public on his side. By returning his business card, Lee was nicely saying “we are not interested in participating.” This was not a disrespectful action against Elizondo, and should not have been taking offensively.
Not only was Lee not interested in having the fans participate in Elizondo’s interview, but if he would have allowed Elizondo to film and publicize pictures or video recordings of the students, FERPA rights would have very well been violated. These rights keep students safe from anyone distributing pictures or video. Although Elizondo’s intentions may have been to showcase his finding thousands of miles away in a different country, it doesn’t erase the rights the students have to remain unpublicized. The fact that Lee was protecting the rights of students should in no way offend Elizondo.
Elizondo quickly ruined his own case by unfairly laming the town of Booker for simply being cautious of their surroundings. Because he wasn’t allowed to do as he please, by interviewing and videoing Booker citizens, Elizondo quickly jumped to conclusions and handled the situation immaturely. Lee was not trying to offend Elizondo; he was only making a decision based on the safety of the fans and his community. Especially around the anniversary of 9/11, security and safety is on high demand. Since the attack occurred ten years ago, everyone has been on their toes in regards to the safety of their country. Distributing film, pictures and other media could potentially cause danger.
All in all, Elizondo got his feelings hurt in a case that he should have taken no offense too. The safety of the country and its people is nothing that is taken lightly. Instead of furiously leaving the football game, then posting a blog whining and complaining about the town of Booker, Elizondo should have sorted out other options on how to continue with his interview respectfully. He should have also considered the reasoning behind Lee’s choice.
