On November 15, the mayor defended the media blackout that kept reporters out of Zuccotti Park as the NYPD evicted its occupants, claiming it was for the media’s own good. "It's to prevent a situation from getting worse and to protect members of the press," the mayor said.

But in light of reports that journalists were wrongfully arrested and bullied, the New York Civil Liberties Union appears to be offering some additional protection.

"Many of you were roughed up, harassed and even arrested yesterday," read an email sent out to reporters by an NYCLU employee last week. The email urged reporters to come forward with stories of abuse from the Tuesday raid.

"Problems with the NYPD? Let me know," it said. "If need be, we can speak on background only or we can keep names and other identifiers confidential."

The NYCLU did not return request for comment, but we caught up with Norman Siegel, the longtime director of group, and a legal adviser to protesters. In 2009, Mr. Siegel successfully sued the city for police press credentials for non-traditional journalists.

“The bearer of a press card is entitled to cross police lines and barriers for breaking news events,” Mr. Siegel explained. “Monday night clearly was that.” There is a provision to deny press access, but the order must come from a supervising officer or DCPI, not just any officer on the street, he explained.

"It's possible that a lot of what happened is a violation of NYPD patrol guides,” he said. He was summoned down to Zuccotti Park himself at 1 a.m. the morning of the raid. In past demonstrations, Mr. Siegel and other civil liberties advocates cooperated with the police to counsel protesters on their rights and reduce total arrest counts. Mr. Siegel was denied access to Zuccotti Park alongside reporters that morning, when arrests totaled more than 200.

Mr. Siegel was quick to add history shows the government can not delegate fundamental rights like the First Amendment to law enforcement.

“It was unseemly for the city, through its police department, to deny journalists their right to report the news,” he said.

(It is worth nothing that it was the Mayor's office, not DCPI, that defended NYPD's arrest of reporters.)

“The reporter is not only doing his job,” Mr. Siegel said, “under the First Amendment, they’re doing their job for all of us.”

DCPI Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne reiterated Mr. Siegel’s description of NYPD’s limited mandate on The Brian Lehrer Show on NPR on Friday, when he explained that NYPD is only concerned with unlawful conduct.

“We’re not in the business of judging whether a movement has political steam or not,” Mr. Browne said.

He went on to explain that no reporters were arrested at Zuccotti Park during the raid, where reporters cooperated and were held two blocks back. As for the arrests of reporters made later that day elsewhere in lower Manhattan, they might not have happened with more oversight.

“Had we had somebody there, DCPI would probably try to accommodate a reporter getting caught up in a situation with a group pushing through police lines,” he explained. He added that the five reporters had their arrests voided.

Mr. Browne made no defense for keeping media out of the Zuccotti raid altogether, explaining that a press pass does not mean the automatic right to cross police lines.

"There are other provisions,” he said, "providing basically we allow it at that moment."

"Just like a crime scene, we’ll bring reporters in after the fact."

It's in response to a lawsuit filed by reporter/blogger/gadfly Rafael Martinez-Alequin, editor David Wallis of featurewell.com and publisher Ralph E. Smith, of The Guardian Chronicle, a blog about correction officers, and their lawyer, Norman Siegel [names added].

"Online journalists will now be considered as 21st century journalists and be treated equally to print, television and radio journalists," said Siegel.

The announcement, from City Hall:

Under the proposed new rules published today, to obtain a press credential, an applicant must show that he or she has covered, in person, six news events where the City has restricted access, within the two-year period preceding the application. In addition to employees of traditional news gathering organizations, the new rules cover self-employed newspersons and other individuals who gather and report the news. The new press card will be issued every two years.  

A press card allows its bearer, with the approval of police, to cross certain barriers established by the City at news events. Many non-City entities also rely on the City press card to distinguish who is a member of the media.  

The proposed rules continue the issuance of “reserve cards” that allow news organizations to credential a reporter for a specific assignment.  The proposal also provides for the continuation of the issuance of a “single event press card” which will be available to journalists who have pre-registered and need the credentials to cover a single event. The reserve card and the single event card eliminate the “chicken or the egg” problem that exists for a prospective press card applicant who has not yet covered, in person, six news events.  

The proposed rules allow for the creation of a press card, reserve card, and single event card, eliminating the “Press Identification Card.”

A public comment period on the proposed new rules begins today and extends through April 7, 2010. On that day, a hearing on the rules, open to the public, will be held at Police Headquarters in Lower Manhattan.

The proposed rules establish timeframes for granting or denying press card applications, and also for hearings and appeals concerning the denial of an application.   

"It's really a corruption of our notion of democracy," said Perkins, a Democratic state senator who represents Harlem. He was speaking Saturday at a Pentecostal church on 125^th Street. The room was one-third filled by people who are concerned about the issue and active in fighting its application around the city: at the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, in Willets Point in Queens and just down the road in Manhattanville, where Columbia wants to build a new campus.

Perkins was prompted to action two weeks ago, when an appellate court ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation acted improperly by declaring parts of Manhattanville blighted ahead of condemnation for Columbia's campus. Columbia first asked ESDC to look into eminent domain in 2004.

Perkins on Saturday reiterated his call that ESDC not appeal this decision, and called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for private development until a commission can be formed and recommend revisions to the eminent domain procedure law.

"This is a very, very important movement," Perkins said, announcing a formal hearing in Harlem on January 5. "We're going to be going around the state to develop a case for reform."

He said the current law is a "corruption of our democracy." He's also said it's like "a gun to the community's head."

The cause is related to Perkins' last legislative accomplishment: stricter oversight of public authorities (many of which have and use eminent domain powers). He said there was no partner in the Assembly, but Richard Brodsky has in the past called for an eminent domain commission and other reforms. None have passed.

The event featured a panel who spoke about various fronts in eminent domain--attorney Norman Siegel, Daniel Goldstein of DDDB, Amy Lavine of Albany Law School--who spoke about their hopes for the Columbia case and about stopping the sale of bonds for the Atlantic Yards.

Later, at a separate event down the road, I and a few other reporters asked David Paterson about Perkins' call for him not to appeal the court decision, which he dismissed.

"We thought that the process was in compliance with land use principles and did not violate eminent domain," Paterson said. "When I was a state senator in 2005 and I saw the original plan, I was virulently opposed to it, but we though that ESDC and Columbia University had adjusted that plan to be in compliance with the law. This whole idea of telling people not to appeal is, if ESDC had won the appellate division, the other side would have gone to the Court of Appeals, people told me not to appeal the lieutenant governor appointment after the Court of Appeals, remember, ruled against it unanimously and if I had listened to them, we would not have a lieutenant governor right now, would we?"

Norman Siegel didn't seem too excited at the idea, and sounded dejected when I spoke to him late this morning. He finished fourth behind Green, DeBlasio and Councilman Eric Gioia.

"I'm not sure what if anything I'll do with regard to that question," Siegel told me. "I have a brief that's due about the slush fund in the appellate division on Friday, so for at least the next day or two I need to focus on that brief."

The runoff will be Sept. 29.

It’s a validation that de Blasio is the most likely to get into the run-off with front-runner Mark Green, whose two stints as public advocate in the 1990s and previous runs for higher office, have given him unequaled name recognition among the competitors.

At last night’s debate, when each candidate was allowed to ask one another a question, they all chose to direct their attention to de Blasio.

Green asked about de Blasio’s habit of giving the Council's member-item money to local organizations whose members later turned around and donated to his campaign. It’s a widespread practice, but it looks unseemly. Green, never having been a legislator, clearly figures it's a good line for him pursue.

Eric Gioia – who started the night off by calling his opponents “insiders” – said Green and de Blasio were waging debates among themselves that “don’t have meaning” in the lives of everyday voters. He also said some of the “outrage” on display was “fake” and that they were “coming up with issues to try to distract voters.”

Then, Gioia demonstrated exactly what he was talking about, asking de Blasio about the support he gets from the Working Families Party and whether that violated city election rules. “The vendors on your campaign disclose their payrolls? Do the vendors on your campaign disclose their pay roles?” Gioia asked him. After de Blasio said that information was “disclosed fully,” Gioia repeated his question. “But do the vendors on your campaign disclose their payrolls?”

Later, his aides said it was a relevant issue because it addressed whether or not de Blasio had been compromised by special interests in a way that will influence how he’ll manage the office.

De Blasio said he’s complied with the spirit and the letter of the Campaign Finance Board rules, and they’ve continued giving him matching funds, a sign that he’s in good standing with them.

“Let me bring it back to the people who are listening to the show,” said the fourth candidate in the race,
civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who grouped Gioia in with de Blasio and Green as “insiders.”

(At one point earlier in the debate, Siegel yelled out “Eric, you’re an insider.”)

When it was Siegel’s turn to ask questions, he asked de Blasio about the city’s treatment of protesters arrested during the Republican’s national convention here in 2004, and the slush-fund scandal in the City Council.

“Why didn’t you say anything or do anything on those two instances?” Siegel asked.

De Blasio said Siegel’s work on the R.N.C. arrests was commendable, and that he fought for greater disclosure after the slush-fund scandal.

“We took instant steps to make changes and there are changes,” de Blasio said.

Politically, the interesting thing was that everyone seemed to agree that they needed to go after de Blasio rather than Green. It’s universally assumed that Green’s high name recognition will lead him to either win the election outright or be in the run-off.

“I tried to focus tonight on serious issues, like empowering public school parents, and changing how the city Planning Commission deals with development issues,” de Blasio told me afterward. “I found a lot of my opponents didn’t want to talk about those issues. They seemed to be more interested in my campaign.”

Gioia spoke afterward about his focus on de Blasio’s ties to the Working Families Party and their alleged violation of campaign spending rules. “And it’s not me, by the way, it’s the Campaign Finance Board, which has begun issuing unprecedented opinions on this. It is major news organizations, and the editorial boards of the three major daily newspapers agree that what we think is happening presents a clear and present danger to the campaign finance system in New York City.”

It’s worth noting that the “clear and present danger” didn’t prevent one of those daily newspapers, The New York Times, from endorsing de Blasio.

Bill de Blasio gained 4 points, and is now at 23 percent. Eric Gioia, who overtook Norman Siegel, gained 3 points and is at 14 percent. Siegel went from 11 percent to 10.

De Blasio and Gioia have done the most advertising. Green, who started with huge name recognition, has just started to advertise.

A poll two weeks ago had Green at a more comfortable 47 percent.

Katz gained 5 points while John Liu, the previous leader, dropped 2 points from a similar poll last week. Katz is now 27 percent, Liu is at 21 percent. David Yassky is at 18 percent and David Weprin is at 11 percent.

In the public advocate’s race, Green dropped 9 points, but he still leads Bill de Blasio, who gained 4 points and is now at 19 percent. Norman Siegel is now at 11 percent. Eric Gioia picked up 2 points and is now at 8 percent.

The poll surveyed 2,250 adults (notice, not just voters!), between the August 21st and 25th. The Times endorsement of de Blasio came out four days later, so his bump from that will (presumably) be seen in the next poll.

As with the previous poll, big grain of salt, O.K.?

Hours after the endorsement came out on Saturday, de Blasio’s campaign put out a robocall featuring Jerry Nadler, who reads part of the endorsement.

The endorsement would seem to solidify de Blasio as front-runner for the not-Green spot in a possible run-off.

The line of the endorsement that stuck out most, to me at least, was the one acknowledging Green's and Norman Siegel’s strong record of opposing former mayor Rudy Giuliani, but adding that “the city and its politics have changed considerably under Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”

Bloomberg’s people have made no secret of their dislike for the office, and their contempt for the people running for it, who they feel will be running for mayor shortly after Election Day. (The only candidate they sort of like seems to be Norman Siegel, who has said that he doesn't want to run for mayor, and argued that the comptroller, not the public advocate, take over if the mayor is unable to serve.)

Interestingly, The Times inadvertently provided an illustration of what critics of the office say is an ill-defined reason for its existence: The editorial says that among the public advocate’s responsibilities are “casting tie votes at the City Council.” Actually, according to the City Charter, “The public advocate shall have the right to participate in the discussion of the council but shall not have a vote.”

Green said that during the first televised debate in the public advocate’s race, hosted by WABC-TV.

Green is hovering at the 40 percent in the polls –enough to win the Democratic primary without a run-off. To prevent that, Bill de Blasio has decided to attack him directly, and make it (appear at least) like a two-person race.

De Blasio attacked Green for working for his brother’s real estate company, and for agreeing in 2001 to allow outgoing mayor Rudy Giuliani to stay in office after his term expired, in order to deal with the impact of the September 11th terrorist attacks.

“Diane, let Bill attack me one more time because he needs it emotionally,” Green told the moderator, Diana Williams.

The fact that Green acknowledged de Blasio arguably benefits de Blasio, who, despite small gains in the most recent public opinion polls, trails Green by more than 20 points. The conventional wisdom is that if Green can be forced into a run-off, his high name recognition can be overcome by a strong Get Out the Vote Operation, like the kind run by labor unions, which have mostly backed de Blasio.

The risk in de Blasio’s strategy is that it’ll leave him, and Green, looking like bickering, mud-slinging pols, and someone like Eric Gioia – who is in last place, despite hitting the airwaves first – can position himself as a fresh, positive alternative.

After referencing, not for the first time that he grew up in Queens, Gioia said politicians have made politics look like “professional wrestling. They yell, they scream at each other. They did everything but hit each other with chairs.”

“The night is still young, so who knows,” Gioia said. Gioia's good-guy routine prompted one rival aide to suggest out loud that Gioia was simply running to boost his name recognition for a more serious race for another office next year.

Norman Siegel stuck to his usual script and said the most important thing was to defend civil liberties. It's a subject on which he's got some credibilty.

Zoe Epstein of Eric Gioia’s office was hanging out in here, joking that she played Bill de Blasio in debate prep.

Mark Green walked by and told his daughter, Jenya, to say hi to us. She did, briefly.

Matt Wing of de Blasio’s office said the hosts should have provided food for us. Fernando Ferrer is with them today, ready to do spin. Also here is Kevin Finnegan, who does politics for the Working Families Party, and seemed entirely unfazed by the scrutiny his practices have come under this cycle.

I’m sure Norman Siegel is floating around here somewhere. The Internet connection is a little weak, so my blogging during the debate will be light.

Predictions, anybody?