Constitutional Question

 

1. OCM, my feeling is that if there is a legal trial involved, as it is here, then the court has a right to over-rule the press’s “secrecy of source” argument. The court can take testimony behind closed doors to protect the “snitch”, if necessary and court documents can be sealed to further protect the “snitch”. What I damn well refuse to accept is the reporter’s judgement only as to the veracity and honesty of the snitch’s information. I’d rather a court and a judge determine that. Wouldn’t you?

   Posted by The Skipper       06/30/2005  at  09:26 AM  



2. I hope they ROT in jail!

   Posted by Macker       06/30/2005  at  09:53 AM  



3. It looks like Time is backing off on this one. They’re going to turn over some of the documents. Just how much remains to be seen. Sorry, if you have information on a crime it’s your duty to disclose that information. The only protection is against self incrimination.

   It looks like we’re in the position of having reporters reporting something from a secret source and then their editors complaining because the government won’t prosecute the leaker because their reporters won’t tell anyone who it was. There’s some circular logic going on here and these people are trying to have it both ways. Sort of like Charlie Rangel and Fritz Hollings introducing draft legislation and screaming that the Republicans are going to institute a draft.

   Posted by StinKerr       06/30/2005  at  12:25 PM  



4. First you have to realize the difference between a facutal report and and editorial opinion. When someone writes an opinion it can be accepted as their opinion and they don’t have to prove . If they make a statement of fact they should be prepared to back it up.

   When someone writes a news story they intend the reader to accept the story as fact. A good news story should be based on multiple sources if the reporter did not witness the event. It’s much better to use named sources: “Mr Smith said he saw the red car go over the cliff at a high rate of speed.” Rather than: “Sources say the car went over the cliff and may have been pushed.” The reporter can stretch the facts to editorialize. Not a good thing.

   When “Smith” reads himself quoted in the paper he knows if it’s correct or not. If he reads the “sources” part he doesn’t know who else the reporter might have talked to but he knows it’s not what he saw. The problem is that nobody else knows it’s bullshit.

   A responsible news organization will have an editor verify a reporter’s sources. Even Especially the anonymous ones. If the story can’t be corroborated it shouldn’t be published.

   There have been too many cases of violation of the public trust perpetrated by reporters and their organizations to take them at their word. They are responsible for what they present as fact. They have to substantiate their claims. If someone whispers something off the record they have the means to investigate it and should do so. To publish the whispers and to hide behind the anonymous source mantra is irresponsible and may even be dishonest.

   Posted by StinKerr       06/30/2005  at  02:01 PM  



5. There’s a lot of issues at stake but most of them were resolved by the SCOTUS in the late 60s/early 70s in the Times cases as well as Branzburg v. Hayes.

   The reporters don’t actually have a legal leg to stand on since this case very closely mirrors one of the landmark opinions.

   The only ‘right’ that reporters have that isn’t guaranteed to the rest of the public (other than what specific state laws give them - irrelevant in this federal case) is a higher threshhold of proof for the need to get a search warrant for a news room. 

   Everything else they claim is just blather.

   Posted by prairie biker       06/30/2005  at  07:08 PM  



6. Right, Biker, and making claims that amount to blather comes naturally to many of them, it seems.

   One thinks of the unlamented Dan Blather, for starters....

   

   Posted by Tannenberg       06/30/2005  at  07:19 PM  



7. I have a friend who works at Crain’s and he and I argued all day about this today.  I even sent him the SCOTUS opinion and he simply will not accept that the courts can compel him to testify before a grand jury in light of possible criminal conduct (respective of his Fifth Amendment rights) regardless of whatever ‘contract’ that reporter has with a confidential source.

   And this issue was resolved by the court 35 years ago.

   Posted by prairie biker       06/30/2005  at  07:35 PM  



8. Well, if your friend is ever summoned to testify, he’ll be in for a rude awakening.

   Posted by Tannenberg       06/30/2005  at  07:48 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.