18 total posts
Federal Shield Law no way
who will be the media's watchdog?
the media has shown over and over on how much bs they can report.
the media has put this upon themselves
''courts to be more skeptical of the press'' and so are the People skeptical of the press...
we already have the whistleblower.pdf protection
Mr Lee is entitled ..............
......to face his accusers also. IMO, his right far
exceeds to 'rights' of journalists, who too often make
news rather than report it.
I apologize...didn't mean to detract from the case
discussed in the linked article. I was referring to the
other recent situation involving journalists refusing to
identify sources who accused Wen Ho Lee (previously of
the Los Alamos National Lab) of spying for China.
Where EXACTLY do you and other advocates...
see ANY indication that the press is to be allowed greater leeway and less stringent application of criminal and civil laws than any non-journalist provided the same information in the following passage?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is NOWHERE within the documentation of this country where the government or anyone else was in any way obligated to provide information to the press nor to provide the press with any special treatment that the common citizen was not entitled to.
If you think otherwise please provide the citation.
All I see in this situation is that 2 journalists who didn't
publish are under investigation and threat of jail, and that Novak, who did publish is sitting umtouched like the fat poisonous toad he is. Of course, he's this Administration's toad which may account for his immunity.
I still don't understand why he's not the focus of this action and not the others.
So, you are against a shield law. You want Novak prosecuted.
Strange that liberal reporters are defended, but conservative ones are attacked. That's a double standard, and seems to meet the threshold for hypocracy.
While uneasy about shield laws
I have to admit, it seems odd that while someone is investigated and/or charged with crimes regarding a story another that told the same story (even first) isn't.
It does smack of hypocrisy, no matter which side does it.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
We don't know that Novak is not being investigated. The
US Attorney on the case has a Democrat background, and is highly respected in Illinois for tenaciously pursuing the case against Republican, then governor, George Ryan in the Licenses for Bribes scandal. The convictions and findings coming out of that investigation have decimated the Republican Party in Illinois. It's a credit to Fitzgerald and President Bush who allowed the investigation to proceed.
In spite of that track record, and knowing nothing about the investigation, some folks do not hesitate to pronounce judgements of favoratism, bias, partisan prosecution, etc. I find that to be totally reprehensible. Do we really expect the Justice Department to hold press conferences to discuss the status, findings, etc. of an investigation? Do we expect progress reports of when, if, and why someone will or will not be prosecuted?
You mean the press shouldn't have
unfettered access to EVERYTHING our government does?! Gasp, that's a violation of their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!
(NT) Fat poisonous toad ... Nice! :-(
(NT) Par for the course,
(NT) My guess is that THEY were HIS source.
The idea of a Federal Shield law is absurd
One, there is no basis for it in the Constitution. Two, it would merely serve to encourage certain journalists to commit libel and/or slander. Three, creating a definition of "journalist" would be troublesome, especially concerning bloggers and those who provide news and commentary over the net.
Our press was initially comprised of citizens who printed up newspaper in their own homes. Now, our press has become a priveleged class, who sees their duty as being the 4th branch of government.
Recently, I was involved in a team building exercise for a graduate program I'm in. The educators had us in a large room, and based upon their statement, had to move to one wall for "strongly agree" or the other for "strongly disagree" or somewhere in the middle of the two. When they said "I trust journalists to provide 'fair and balanced' news," no matter the political philosophies of everyone, we all crowded against the "strongly disagree" wall.
Re journalists and bloggers
Not to mention
many of the so-called "journalists" are less principled than their blogging counterparts. Journalism in itself is a trade open automatically to any US citizen... defining who is a "journalist" WOULD violate citizens' right to free speech.
Interesting thing, Roger...
Roger, one of the interesting things is that to get such credentials, you have to go thru a clearance investigation. They don't deal in user names like on forums. A party who might say no end of things on a blog under a pen name might tend to publish differently when the article can be linked to his actual identity.
Then explain why they should have more rights than the rest of us. This is a bad idea.