US Congress mulls press shield law as reporter wallows in jail

[aaron11]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US senators wrestle with a plan to shield journalists who protect anonymous sources, as a top reporter languishes in jail, still defying the courts in a politically charged leak probe.

Judith Miller of the New York Times will mark two weeks of time served for refusing to divulge her source in a legal showdown which has mushroomed into a bona fide scandal, centering on White House political guru Karl Rove.

She went to jail rather than tell a special prosecutor who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, supposedly as an act of revenge after her husband alleged President George W. Bush stretched the truth to wage war on Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050719/pl_afp/usmediajustice_050719224528

[aaron11]

The free flow of information is an essential element of democracy," said Senator Richard Lugar, one of the bill's co-sponsors.

"Compelling reporters to testify and, in particular, forcing them to reveal the identity of their confidential sources without extraordinary circumstances, hurts the public interest.

BS...

You got something worth saying then You should back it up with your name...
You can't put your name on it then :finger:

This would only help journalist perpetrate more lies...Hell who needs sources when it's easier to just make sh!t up....:flame:

[Rink]

Personally that 'journalist' can STAY in jail and rot there for all I give a damn.

They shouldnt get Any special priviledges whatsoever because if they do get special priviledges they WILL abuse it to the max 'Just to get back at Bush'.

[Beowulf]

Got something to say? Say it and have the balls to put your name to it. If not, shut your mouth! If you have something to say that can affect someone else in whatever way, say it or sit in jail with your convictions.

[Venus de Smilo]

Conservatives have made great inroads against the leftwing, elitist media through the internet and radio. Compare our plight to just five years ago. Demanding everybody be revealed is short-sighted.

If you shut off the flow of sensitive background information from the government to the media by mandating sources be revealed at the insistence of a prosecutor or judge, you break down the transparency of government for the public. I happen to think this connection is a critical balance to the struggle between government's desire to be secretive and the people's right to transparency in government. It keeps them on the up and up, and the last thing we want to do is give the government MORE POWER. Unless the source name is material to an underlying crime, the government has no need to know who said what to whom when confidentiality has been promised.. It's none of their business.

There is no good reason to not shield journalists unless there's solid evidence that a journalist deliberately lied or conspired in an episode where there's an underlying crime and the source name is material or in the case of a serious security threat. Granting less than that is cutting our own throats.

The journalist in jail is not a lefty, I keep telling you people that.

Be careful, very careful what you wish for.

[Melz]

I have stayed away from this convo for a while because, I believe that the media has presented soooo many harmful lies that sheilding them from outing their sources only gives them more opportunity to present more lies and say "It's true but I don't have to tell you how I know.".

What if a journalist interviewed someone who knew something about an unsolved crime? They may or may not print it but they now know about a crime. I know it seems like I am comparing apples to oranges here, but such sheilding could let those with the most access to public events keep crimes secret forever. Lawyers already have that priveledge. I don't want this protection given to journalists.

[Venus de Smilo]

Lawyers don't have that privilege. What are you talking about?

[Melz]

Lawyers don't have that privilege. What are you talking about?

I guess they don't have that legal priviledge. Just that it is similar to a case here in Ohio where a girl has been missing (well okay she is dead now that we know) and there is a lawyer who knows something about it. She claims client/attorney priviledge. Which was justified even after her client (the one who knew something) died. The reason she is in jail for not telling what she knows is because the woman's husband was allowed to release that priviledge, and he did. She still refused to tell and is still in jail, nearly a year later now, for contempt. She had that "protection" until the husband of her client signed away her priviledge.

Sorry, off topic but this is a little 9 year old girl who was missing for years, they found her like 5 years later and the lawyer who knows something won't talk.

[aaron11]

If you shut off the flow of sensitive background information from the government to the media by mandating sources be revealed at the insistence of a prosecutor or judge, you break down the transparency of government for the public.



With all due respect...imo
Hog wash, If it's sensitive then it should stay that way...If you got to lie cheat and hide then that is not "transparency" It's the illusion of transparency...

I am not one to blindly trust the gooberment...But my trust for media and its various outlets is zillllch!

I won't support leaking...We have enough leahy's for that as it is...

If they "Gov. officials" cannot find an above the board way to put the word out...And hacks/Journalist cannot find an above the board way to find/report the news then we have bigger problems to deal with...

[Venus de Smilo]

Attorney-client privilege relates to the Fifth Amendment protection for a defendant and his due process right, not a right for his/her lawyer. When the privilege was waived by the husband, the lawyer had no legal basis to remain silent.

[Melz]

But the fact remains that the attorney has protection to withhold evidence of a murder. I (in my initial thoughts on this subject of protecting press members) am just saying that I don't want the press to be able to withhold evidence on subjects such as this. And giving them any sort of "protection" (albeit not 5th Ammendment) could lead to all sorts of withholding of evidence and eventually become protected thru a SCOTUS decision to where they get the same press/client priviledge.

That was my issue with this whole protection thing.

[Venus de Smilo]

With all due respect...imo
Hog wash, If it's sensitive then it should stay that way...If you got to lie cheat and hide then that is not "transparency" It's the illusion of transparency...

I am not one to blindly trust the gooberment...But my trust for media and its various outlets is zillllch!

I won't support leaking...We have enough leahy's for that as it is...

If they "Gov. officials" cannot find an above the board way to put the word out...And hacks/Journalist cannot find an above the board way to find/report the news then we have bigger problems to deal with...

It depends on who it's sensitive for. I don't think it's strictly up to the government to decide that because government substitutes preference for sensitivity. They can characterize just about anything as 'sensitive' and, if we can't get the details and the full information, we have no way to know what is going on. I don't want to live in a country with a Stalinesque, secretive government. Our constitution was designed to foster transparency of government activities. It's always beneficial for the people to know what their government is doing, with the exception of certain security and military matters, of course, because we are the final check and balance to the power of government. But a government worker or official may fear repercussions if information is revealed. The government naturally doesn't want to reveal what it's doing, even in relatively normal procedures. They'd rather not suffer the criticism because, no matter what they do, somebody will always disagree and complain. The press has served for hundreds of years as an intermediary in that silent conflict. This case has changed all that. Reporters will not seek the information and thus we will not receive that information. I don't say that mainstream media reporters do a good job and aren't biased in the way they present stories, because it's just not so.

We need REAL investigative journalism and, while we don't have much of it now, we'll never have it again after this case unless we take steps to keep those channels open. Thirty-one states have shield laws already. It's nineteen states and the feds who don't have it.

I don't trust the mainstream media, either, but they don't have anywhere near the power over our daily lives, our finances, our children, parents, property, etc., that the government does. Why anybody would want to give the government carte blanche to operate in secrecy is beyond me.

More and more the government insists on knowing what we're doing, how we spend our money, where we go and who we know. I cannot and never will understand an America that would not insist on the same transparency from government. As a conservative, I am stunned to see so many conservatives willing to give up our power because they don't like some leftwing journalists. That's a transitory condition in the big picture, but relinquishing your power to government authority through secrecy is final. You won't get it back and I, for one apparently, am not ready to surrender the First Amendment just yet.

[aaron11]

More and more the government insists on knowing what we're doing, how we spend our money, where we go and who we know. I cannot and never will understand an America that would not insist on the same transparency from government.

I do insist...But, not through dark alley unsubstantiated channels...

You got something to say Put your name on it! If there is something going on that is so egregious then its your duty to do so...

The media is already wreckless and out of control...I won't support anything that gives them more power, expecialy if if gives them more power to deceive...

[Melz]

I do insist...But, not through dark alley unsubstantiated channels...

You got something to say Put your name on it! If there is something going on that is so egregious then its your duty to do so...

The media is already wreckless and out of control...I won't support anything that gives them more power, expecialy if if gives them more power to deceive...

I agree so very much. If you are telling the truth, you have nothing to hide. These people are not being searched and property seized. Their unalienable rights as citizens are not being taken away. But until they can step up and show where they got their story (rightly called so) then how can any weight be lended to their "facts?"

Aaron, I feel the same on this matter.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Journalists are not entitled to any sort of extra-constitutional rights.

[Venus de Smilo]

aaron, the shield laws don't give them more power. It's a defensive mechanism against what just happened. The jailing of Miller for not divulging her source was what upset the apple cart. The shield law proposal is a response to correct that, not open up a new set of power for the media. It's an effort to maintain the status quo in terms of the balance of power and government oversight by the people as it has been for over two hundred years.

[aaron11]

That's a transitory condition in the big picture, but relinquishing your power to government authority through secrecy is final. You won't get it back and I, for one apparently, am not ready to surrender the First Amendment just yet.

Not allowing the media to say w/e it wants without substantiating it is not the same as surrendering the First Amendment...

[aaron11]

The shield laws don't give them more power. It's a defensive mechanism against what just happened. The jailing of Miller for not divulging her source was what upset the apple cart. The shield law proposal is a response to correct that, not open up a new set of power for the media. It's an effort to maintain the status quo in terms of the balance of power and government oversight by the people as it has been for over two hundred years.

She belongs in jail...

Your not going to convince me otherwise in the midst of the Plame game...

[Melz]

The shield laws don't give them more power. It's a defensive mechanism against what just happened. The jailing of Miller for not divulging her source was what upset the apple cart. The shield law proposal is a response to correct that, not open up a new set of power for the media. It's an effort to maintain the status quo in terms of the balance of power and government oversight by the people as it has been for over two hundred years.

It doesn't give them more power YET. We have seen how the SC can rule in favor of anything though, and a protection for the press can certainly lead to precedent being made in their favor in a case, any case, where their information will be necessary to solve a crime.

And crime should not be protected. No one should have protection in that sense.

[Venus de Smilo]

The market regulates the media, slowly, yes, but surely. We are witnessing a meltdown of the major mainstream media because of dishonest - actually slective and misleading - reportage.

I think what I'm seeing happening here is that posters are so blinded by hatred for the MSM in the short term that there's a failure to see the larger, long-term picture. I despise them just as much as anyone else, but all that is beside the point.

I don't think I would see this if we had a right-leaning press. But the direction of the press is not the issue. The issue is the balance of power between the people and the government. The role of the press is critical in maintaining that balance.

[Venus de Smilo]

It doesn't give them more power YET. We have seen how the SC can rule in favor of anything though, and a protection for the press can certainly lead to precedent being made in their favor in a case, any case, where their information will be necessary to solve a crime.

And crime should not be protected. No one should have protection in that sense.

Metz, if you'd read my earlier posts, you'd realize that I clearly and plainly stated that there should be no shield when the source name is material to a crime or national security.

And for your information, there is already a huge body of established law on press privilege.

[Melz]

The market regulates the media, slowly, yes, but surely. We are witnessing a meltdown of the major mainstream media because of dishonest - actually slective and misleading - reportage.

I think what I'm seeing happening here is that posters are so blinded by hatred for the MSM in the short term that there's a failure to see the larger, long-term picture. I despise them just as much as anyone else, but all that is beside the point.

I don't think I would see this if we had a right-leaning press. But the direction of the press is not the issue. The issue is the balance of power between the people and the government. The role of the press is critical in maintaining that balance.

It is not a hatred for the MSM, I have ruled them out as competitors in the race for knowledge actually. There are less mainstream media outlets which are presented...I don't even hate them. I think it is sad that they are not held to any standards, such as truth. That baffles the heck out of me. There are no standards, pretty much say what you want, we will print it and buy it.

My issue stems from the recent Supreme Court decision (the Kelo decison actually) which shocked me completely. And also made me realize that, once some case gets there, they can use some strange clause or semi-established law and turn it into precedent. And then it is up to others to fight the effed up decison back out of the SC.

In essence, I don't like the media's crap, but I have no power to stop them from lying. I have no power to make stupid people not believe them.

I will have no power to stop a precedent from happening once a case of "protected sources" goes to the SC. I don't want it to go that far. That is my point in all of this, I promise.

[aaron11]

Not really, mistrust, loathing, contempt, utter disgust aside...

I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy...

In fact I will always believe just the oppisite...Transparancy depend absolutely on open honesty...

[Venus de Smilo]

She belongs in jail...

Your not going to convince me otherwise in the midst of the Plame game...

There has been no underlying crime established in the Plame case.

Judith Miller is not a lefty. For all we know, she could be protecting a favored source in the adminitration.

LOL! As for refusing to have your mind changed, it matters not to me. There's no ignorance like willful ignorance.

[aaron11]

Not really, mistrust, loathing, contempt, utter disgust aside...

I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy...

In fact I will always believe just the oppisite...Transparancy depends absolutely on open honesty...

[Melz]

Metz, if you'd read my earlier posts, you'd realize that I clearly and plainly stated that there should be no shield when the source name is material to a crime or national security.

And for your information, there is already a huge body of established law on press privilege.

I do realize that Venus. Your posts just seem to indicate that you are for that huge body of established law protecting the press. And I am against it. Which is why I am arguing on it..lol.

Goodnight oh non sleepers :)

[aaron11]

There has been no underlying crime established in the Plame case.

Judith Miller is not a lefty. For all we know, she could be protecting a favored source in the adminitration.

LOL!

Don't matter...She was given a waiver to divulge her source...She can rot in jail and eat her so called principals...

[Venus de Smilo]

I do realize that Venus. Your posts just seem to indicate that you are for that huge body of established law protecting the press. And I am against it. Which is why I am arguing on it..lol.

Goodnight oh non sleepers :)

My posts don't indicate more or less than I've said.

The purpose of my point that there's already a huge body of established law is that the SCOTUS has a lot of precedent so isn't likely to stray too far from were we've been for the last two-hundred+ years in response to the fall-back concern/excuse that the SCOTUS will make some drastic ruling that will allow the media to take over the world.:rolleyes:

[aaron11]

You say that in jest,

However through the media and propaganda Hitler very nearly did just that...


I shriek at the thought of a Clinton Whitehouse collaborating with and unchecked media...

[Venus de Smilo]

Not really, mistrust, loathing, contempt, utter disgust aside...

I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy...

...

"I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy..."

But it has for over two-hundred years.

"In fact I will always believe just the oppisite...Transparancy depends absolutely on open honesty."

Dream on, aaron. If that was a reality, we wouldn't have needed the FOIA.

[aaron11]

"I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy..."

But it has for over two-hundred years.

"In fact I will always believe just the oppisite...Transparancy depends absolutely on open honesty."

Dream on, aaron. If that was a reality, we wouldn't have needed the FOIA.

That is exactly what I am talking about...

There are better ways then empowering a corrupt media to lie without recoarse...

[Venus de Smilo]

You say that in jest,

However through the media and propaganda Hitler very nearly did just that...


I shriek at the thought of a Clinton Whitehouse collaborating with and unchecked media...

"However through the media and propaganda Hitler very nearly did just that..."

That's because Hitler's Third Reich controlled the media.

"I shriek at the thought of a Clinton Whitehouse collaborating with and unchecked media.."

The media has never been unchecked and never will be. We are the check on the media, and their grip over popular thought becomes more tenuous every day with the rise of vibrant alternatives. There were leaks during the Clinton administration and during all administrations in the modern era as government has grown. The more government grows, the more likely there are to be leaks. The more an administration has to hide, the less likely it is to collaborate with anybody, especially the media. In the case of media being generally friendly toward an administration, such as with the Clinton administration, we find a "don't ask, don't tell" syndrome going on. They know the adminsitration is corrupt, but won't dig for the details because they support their man. That's what I was talking about earlier about selective reporting - they don't report all stories or they don't report all the details within a story, or they report them but put them in the last paragraphs of a twenty-column story when it's something really big. I despise this practice, but the market (we) are changing that. The print press as we've known it for thirty years is going down the tubes and the broadcast media has less than half the audience share that they used to. We're winning, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Lack of source protection is the surest way possible to allow the government to operate in secrecy and, as I said before, that's an imbalance of power that will be our death knell, particularly if we do have another Clinton administration - just the opposite of what you said. If somebody in a Hillary administration leaks something bad about her administration, and she uses her justice department to force a reporter to tell who it was, that would be the last time we ever got some truth out of that adminstration, owing to the prosecution and possible death of the source.

[Venus de Smilo]

It is not a hatred for the MSM, I have ruled them out as competitors in the race for knowledge actually. There are less mainstream media outlets which are presented...I don't even hate them. I think it is sad that they are not held to any standards, such as truth. That baffles the heck out of me. There are no standards, pretty much say what you want, we will print it and buy it.

My issue stems from the recent Supreme Court decision (the Kelo decison actually) which shocked me completely. And also made me realize that, once some case gets there, they can use some strange clause or semi-established law and turn it into precedent. And then it is up to others to fight the effed up decison back out of the SC.

In essence, I don't like the media's crap, but I have no power to stop them from lying. I have no power to make stupid people not believe them.

I will have no power to stop a precedent from happening once a case of "protected sources" goes to the SC. I don't want it to go that far. That is my point in all of this, I promise.

But that's what I'm trying to tell you. They are being held to standards through market forces. Since you don't follow it, you're probably unaware of the management changes going on in the MSM. I've watched the MSM slowly come to the realization that if they don't change, they're going to go out of business. Others here have also seen this. They aren't doing it happily. They're doing it as a result of financial decisions made by their parent companies and stockholders. The smart people are changing the media by turning to alternative media, by not watching the MSM and not supporting their advertising sponsors and, in the course of that, the dumb people who can't or won't think for themselves will be force-fed a balanced diet of truth and fairness instead of lies, spin, half-truths and leftist propaganda.

You indeed have power to stop them, just as I do, and that's by frequenting the alternative media. Turn on conservative talk radio, even if you're not listening. Read conservative blogs, read Drudge, join some email lists of conservative writers. Drudge broke new ground with his site, and the MSM hate him still. They are being dragged to truthful, complete and fair reporting or they will be starved out of business. It's that simple.

We already have SCOTUS precedent for protecting sources. What I'm telling you is that what happened with Cooper and Miller is what is out of the ordinary, and why any conservative would want to see Miller jailed is beyond me. I think you people see the title "journalist" with her name and want to knee-jerk kick her into a cell. I, for one, despise the specter of the government dragging a journalist into federal court, into one of their 'star chamber' grand jury witch hunts, and then jail them for not revealing a source when there's NO UNDERLYING CRIME. Miller didn't even write a story about Plame! Do you have any clue as to what kind of power that gives the government? Good God, what is wrong with you people??:rolleyes: You really have no idea at all what you're advocating. Move to Beijing and you'll soon find out.

What you discovered in Kelo has been going on for about seventy years now. Where ya' been, Metz? What do you think all the hoopla about Bush's SCOTUS nomination has been about? Why do you think the 'rats have used the filibuster to keep Bush's judicial nominees at bay? The judiciary is the left's last bastion of power and we're after it. Their carefully groomed judicial activists have damaged this country severely and we're in a deadly fight to return some balance and originalist sense to the bench and to the SCOTUS. Such decisions as Kelo have become commonplace. Where ya' been? We have the congress, we have the WH, we have the majority of governorships and have increased state legislative control. The judiciary is the remaining leftist blight that needs to be eradicated in order to restore some sanity to this country's law, and we're working on it.

[Federal Farmer]

Not really, mistrust, loathing, contempt, utter disgust aside...

I don't and will never agree to the idea that transparency is dependent on secracy...

In fact I will always believe just the oppisite...Transparancy depend absolutely on open honesty...
In relationships between husband and wife, friends...,yes. In government with high stakes at risk, no.

If Hillary were in the White House in 2010 and a reporter were contacted by a "high government source" who had information that would bring her presidency to an end, slam dunk, but he would not reveal anything unless his anonymity were guaranteed under any and all circumstances (because he truly feared for his life and family even if she were removed from office), would you want this source protected, or for him to walk away from the reporter?

[Venus de Smilo]

That is exactly what I am talking about...

There are better ways then empowering a corrupt media to lie without recoarse...

Oh. Okay. When's the last time YOU submitted an FOIA request?

I just explained the recourse, but to understand it you have to be able to see beyond the next fifteen minutes, aaron.

[Venus de Smilo]

In relationships between husband and wife, friends...,yes. In government with high stakes at risk, no.

If Hillary were in the White House in 2010 and a reporter were contacted by a "high government source" who had information that would bring her presidency to an end, slam dunk, but he would not reveal anything unless his anonymity were guaranteed under any and all circumstances (because he truly feared for his life and family even if she were removed from office), would you want this source protected, or for him to walk away from the reporter?

Halleleujah!! Somebody gets it! Thank you, FF! There's hope for this place yet!

[DesertFox]

I get it, Venus. My question is the one Bluemoon raised: Where in the Constitution does the press get this special protection or privilege?

[Venus de Smilo]

I get it, Venus. My question is the one Bluemoon raised: Where in the Constitution does the press get this special protection or privilege?

Any plain reading of the founding fathers' debates surrounding this phrase, "...(or abridging the freedom of speech), or of the press;...." found in the First Amendment makes it clear that their intent was to avoid state control over the press's ability to gather and disseminate information, and the power to compel dissemination, whether it was favorable to the state or not, and the bulk of case law since then has upheld that intent with the exceptions of witnessing crimes, or material facts thereof (with some exceptions to that, also), and national security matters (also with some exceptions). Do you want the entire body of law on the subject?

I'm happy that you get it because I know you favor transparency in government and take a dim view of tyranny. I also think you realize that it's an administration's responsibility to control its leaks, not the press's, and not the people's. Everyone involved in the information game must play his own hand; no one entity is responsible for the other's, and that's what creates the balance. Government has a natural and understandable tendency to secretiveness, the people want to know what's going on as much as they possibly can (or they should) because although we consent to be governed, we all have differing levels of trust in any present administration or office, depending on who is in the WH, governor's office, or at the helm in this or that department (FBI, etc.), and the press naturally wants to investigate (or they should) because the people demand it (or they should) and will put them out of business if they fail too seriously or too often.

[Warlady]

Judith Miller is in jail because she wants to be. Her source signed a waiver to name them. I don't want her in jail either but she has permission to name her source and she's not doing it. I don't understand why she's in jail since she never wrote an article. What's silly about nadagate is Plame hasn't been covert for years. Plus she outed herself when she made a donation to Al Gore in 2000 under her covert name. I totally agree with FF and Venus. They should be allowed to protect their sources otherwise they'll never get sensitive information that we need to know or want to know. I hope they do pass a law to protect them from contempt of court.

[aaron11]

:rolleyes:

[aaron11]

In relationships between husband and wife, friends...,yes. In government with high stakes at risk, no.

If Hillary were in the White House in 2010 and a reporter were contacted by a "high government source" who had information that would bring her presidency to an end, slam dunk, but he would not reveal anything unless his anonymity were guaranteed under any and all circumstances (because he truly feared for his life and family even if she were removed from office), would you want this source protected, or for him to walk away from the reporter?

Walk away...If the individual cannot trust said reporter...Information has a way of finding print...Giving special protection is not needed...Ask Nixon...

Sorry I am not bitting...The media has had its chance and has proven to be just as dangerous and decietful as any past governments...The status quoe has worked just fine...They do not need special protection in order keep doing what they have been doing...I don't care if Miller rots...She knew the risk's she has an out, She is there on her own account...

[Federal Farmer]

Information has a way of finding print...Giving special protection is not needed...Ask Nixon...
Woodward and Bernstein were never jailed for not revealing their source.

Sorry I am not bitting...The media has had its chance and has proven to be just as dangerous and decietful as any past governments...
A "dangerous" media? I consider much of it a joke. Anyone who does their homework and reads well can ferret out stories for the BS they are. Ask Rather. As Venus has said, the alternative media has changed the old press, BS is being outed at the speed of light.

The status quoe has worked just fine...They do not need special protection in order keep doing what they have been doing...I don't care if Miller rots...She knew the risk's she has an out, She is there on her own account...
No she's there on a judges' account. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I've said, understandable given the thread title. As Venus has pointed out, precedence is already there in case law. Given that, we wouldn't need the federal legislature making new law if the judiciary abided by the age-long definition of the freedom of the press guarantee of "laying no prior restraints upon publications" written by Blackstone long ago. The press must be able to search for information, protect sources, and print their stories without being in fear of landing in jail because a judge can once again arbitrarily use the contempt of court charge. Keep in mind that this does not mean that the press cannot be held accountable for libel or attacks upon a public official. But as it stands now the federal judiciary is holding the power in this matter by jailing a reporter, and the federal legislature is understandably trying to remedy that; I would prefer that both back away and let freedom of the press stand; but the judiciary wants the power to legislate from the bench, long established rights of property or press be damned.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The market regulates the media, slowly, yes, but surely. We are witnessing a meltdown of the major mainstream media because of dishonest - actually slective and misleading - reportage.

I think what I'm seeing happening here is that posters are so blinded by hatred for the MSM in the short term that there's a failure to see the larger, long-term picture. I despise them just as much as anyone else, but all that is beside the point.

I don't think I would see this if we had a right-leaning press. But the direction of the press is not the issue. The issue is the balance of power between the people and the government. The role of the press is critical in maintaining that balance.

I think there's another point.

We are the media. The First Amendment belongs to all of us -- equally and without exception. The false -- though, practically speaking, very real -- impression that has grown up around the so-called fourth estate is of no import to me.

The media are nothing more than a collection of competing interests. They are a collection of private businesses which peddle information. That’s all. Shield laws provide extra-constitutional, civil rights protections to some simply because they work for this or that interest group/private business that sells opinions and stories about events. More to the point, shield laws inevitably protect the identities of public servants who are directly accountable to the people who write their checks, and they may have information that pertains to real crimes against the people. It is the public servant’s duty to stand up straight and divulge what he knows to all, not hide behind some journalist’s skirt. If what he knows is truly a crime, we have every right to know his identity, his motive, the entire truth of the matter, and all that may be known about others who may be involved. If it isn’t worth putting one's career on the line, it most likely isn’t worth our time or attention: just another disgruntled public servant telling tales or unlawfully revealing sensitive information. If so, he needs to be exposed. Shield laws can only render the information reported about this or that alleged misconduct murkier, less trustworthy.

Currently, we don’t have a national shield law. We’ve done just fine without one. I’d rather that the political system’s natural push-and-pull decide the fate of players involved, sans any special protections afforded to some simply because they're wearing press badges. No citizen has an inherent right to suppress information about a crime or make criminal allegations and then play the mute . . . as he/his source may in fact be lying or conflating a legitimate political call, according to some misguided sense of morality, with scandal. If journalists choose to keep their mouths shut about their source(s) in matters that rise to the attention of the courts, that’s fine with me. But there’s a price to pay. Let them do whatever they will in accordance with their consciences. Let the sources do whatever they will in accordance with their consciences. . . . And let the investigating authority do whatever it will in accordance with the people’s will, bringing pressure to bear on those who withhold pertinent information related to the process of uncovering potential crimes. Public opinion, fallout, will inevitably decide who’s right and who’s wrong. Or it won’t decide anything at all -- just shrug its shoulders and walk away.

The instances in which journalists are called on to reveal their sources to the courts are rare, and typically touch on serious crimes where life or limb are at stake, or alleged scandals involving public servants that the natural political process, stoked by public opinion, has deemed worthy of investigation. We don’t need another artificial barrier interfering with the natural course of political strife . . . especially one that would readily lend itself to abuse and any number of unintended consequences.

Don’t think for one moment that there aren’t journalists out there right now -- aligned with interests opposed to those who are keeping secrets -- doing everything they can to discover and reveal the identity of Miller’s source(s).

[aaron11]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What the moon said...

[Melz]

*Agreeing totally* The point Moon made what the point I was trying to make. Of course, it is nice to find someone else in agreement (besides me and Aaron)

thought about this today and came to the conclusion of my entire opinion (which Venus so very exactly was questioning)...

If you tell ANYONE of something you need protection from, don't expect it to last forever. If you tell THE MEDIA and expect protection, expect yourself to get the brunt of it once we realize (AGAIN) that it was a lie.

If you have something which is of immediate knowledge to the public, to a crime, towards terrorism, ETC..Why would you want to keep your identity a secret and go to the media?? The police can do that. The media need not that responsibility. Don't go to the media, go to the police!

Just telling stories to the media which lies to us all the time is not impressive. I don't care to hear "stories" which cannot be substantiated. If you have the truth about something, tell it ?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Given that, we wouldn't need the federal legislature making new law if the judiciary abided by the age-long definition of the freedom of the press guarantee of "laying no prior restraints upon publications" written by Blackstone long ago. The press must be able to search for information, protect sources, and print their stories without being in fear of landing in jail because a judge can once again arbitrarily use the contempt of court charge.

No one has the inherent right to withhold pertinent information about a crime. No one. That is established law. That principle and the principle of prior restraint are not in conflict. Discretion is the key. And the sort of discretion involved here is mostly judicial. The legislature needs to stand by its original contention with respect to the public’s safety and well-being, and not contradict itself. It needs to butt out and leave this sort of matter to the courts . . . and the informal political process of public opinion and scrutiny. In this instance, the term "arbitrary" is relative to the nature of the matter being investigated and the extent to which the public is willing to tolerate a journalist's lack of cooperation. The courts are not out of line here, and any legislation along the lines proposed would only further complicate matters, making for a muddled and an endlessly adjudicated piece of work, one that would inevitably be used by factions of the media to suppress the interests of other factions within the same.

Who is to be shielded? Only reporters from the major networks and cable channels? major newspapers? Okay, all newspapers: the large, the small, the independent . . . the self-proclaimed. And if not, why not? What about bloggers? If not directly involved in the commission of a crime, why can’t I write about one and protect my source? Oh, I would rather have nothing to do with writing such a law, and would be packing heat with an eye on every S.O.B. around me if I did.

So Miller won’t get her hair and nails done for a while. She’ll survive and be released once the matter resolves itself in accordance with the political cycle of things. You want to be a journalist? Understand that certain risks -- typically only under extraordinary circumstances -- occasionally come with the job.

A national shield law is a bad idea. We don’t need one. Who are these people making such a big deal over this all of the sudden?

[Venus de Smilo]

Woodward and Bernstein were never jailed for not revealing their source.


A "dangerous" media? I consider much of it a joke. Anyone who does their homework and reads well can ferret out stories for the BS they are. Ask Rather. As Venus has said, the alternative media has changed the old press, BS is being outed at the speed of light.


No she's there on a judges' account. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I've said, understandable given the thread title. As Venus has pointed out, precedence is already there in case law. Given that, we wouldn't need the federal legislature making new law if the judiciary abided by the age-long definition of the freedom of the press guarantee of "laying no prior restraints upon publications" written by Blackstone long ago. The press must be able to search for information, protect sources, and print their stories without being in fear of landing in jail because a judge can once again arbitrarily use the contempt of court charge. Keep in mind that this does not mean that the press cannot be held accountable for libel or attacks upon a public official. But as it stands now the federal judiciary is holding the power in this matter by jailing a reporter, and the federal legislature is understandably trying to remedy that; I would prefer that both back away and let freedom of the press stand; but the judiciary wants the power to legislate from the bench, long established rights of property or press be damned.

You see with crystal clarity. Excellent explanation/post.

[Venus de Smilo]

Blue, nobody said anything remotely close to suggesting journalists be shielded from revealing a source when the information is material to an underlying crime. I said exactly the opposite, and it also has nothing to do with judicially forcing someone to succumb to a witch hunt or the whim of a prosecutor.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Venus, all I'm saying is that we don't need a national shield law for journalists. My reason for opposing such a law has nothing to do with the fact that the media is dominated by lefty. As for judiciary "witch hunts" -- these kinds of inquiries are political animals which live or die by the people. They are inevitable: one man's witch hunt is another's righteous crusade. A national shield law would merely empower some at the expense of others. It would in fact become a playground for yet more unwanted judiciary activism.

[DesertFox]

I'm still wondering where in the Constitution the press gets this exemption that other citizens don't get.

[Warlady]

Fox it's in the First Amendment. Since Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of the press then what law do judges have to reference when citing journalists for contempt of court?

[DesertFox]

No, Warlady, it is most conspicuously missing in the First Amendment or any of the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration of Independence, or any of the founding documents or the papers of any of the Founding Fathers, that in order to avoid "abridging the freedom of the press," reporters get to shield their sources.

Or perhaps you can point out some sources for your assertion?

While I understand perfectly what Venus is saying, and agree to a point, I think this whole "protect the source" thing is like the "wall of separation" idea that has no Consitutional basis. Somebody enunciated it and others (judges) went along with it. That's barely distinguishable from legislating from the bench.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Warbabe, there is nothing inherently unreasonable or unconstitutional about a judge citing a journalist for contempt of court when that journalist refuses to divulge pertinent information to a prosecutorial authority in a duly established criminal investigation. Further, the source of the journalist’s information in this instance is a government employee, a public servant. I don’t see anything in the first amendment that exempts anyone -- journalists included -- from being accountable to these kinds of proceedings.

Now, is this whole thing much ado about nothing? Maybe. Was it wise to jail the journalist? Maybe not. But the issue here is whether or not certain persons are entitled to extra-constitutional protections simply because they just so happen to work for a newspaper. I have an equal claim on the concerns of the First Amendment. Who the hell are they?

Nobody is stopping the press from investigating or writing about this story.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

No, Warlady, it is most conspicuously missing in the First Amendment or any of the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration of Independence, or any of the founding documents or the papers of any of the Founding Fathers, that in order to avoid "abridging the freedom of the press," reporters get to shield their sources.

Or perhaps you can point out some sources for your assertion?

While I understand perfectly what Venus is saying, and agree to a point, I think this whole "protect the source" thing is like the "wall of separation" idea that has no Consitutional basis. Somebody enunciated it and others (judges) went along with it. That's barely distinguishable from legislating from the bench.

You nailed it, Jack. The Founders recognized no such inherent protection for journalists. It's not because they didn't consider the matter or failed to anticipate certain contingencies. It's because they understood that the conveyance and protection of sensitive information was best left to judicial discretion and informal political pressures rather than to a set of inflexible rules. Every case is different.

[DesertFox]

Too, they knew perfectly well the viciousness of which the press is capable. I've read often that the MSM shit we complain about on this board is decidely mild compared to the savagery of the press in Jefferson's day, and Andrew Jackson certainly had reason to hate the press of his time.

I'm thinking the Founders would wonder what in the world we were thinking when we decided the press gets to shield its sources. That's carte blanche for outright criminality and treason.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

That's carte blanche for outright criminality and treason.

Precisely.

[aaron11]

That's carte blanche for outright criminality and treason.


:claps:

[Federal Farmer]

No one has the inherent right to withhold pertinent information about a crime. No one. That is established law. That principle and the principle of prior restraint are not in conflict. Discretion is the key. And the sort of discretion involved here is mostly judicial. The legislature needs to stand by its original contention with respect to the public’s safety and well-being, and not contradict itself. It needs to butt out and leave this sort of matter to the courts . . . and the informal political process of public opinion and scrutiny. In this instance, the term "arbitrary" is relative to the nature of the matter being investigated and the extent to which the public is willing to tolerate a journalist's lack of cooperation. The courts are not out of line here, and any legislation along the lines proposed would only further complicate matters, making for a muddled and an endlessly adjudicated piece of work, one that would inevitably be used by factions of the media to suppress the interests of other factions within the same.

Who is to be shielded? Only reporters from the major networks and cable channels? major newspapers? Okay, all newspapers: the large, the small, the independent . . . the self-proclaimed. And if not, why not? What about bloggers? If not directly involved in the commission of a crime, why can’t I write about one and protect my source? Oh, I would rather have nothing to do with writing such a law, and would be packing heat with an eye on every S.O.B. around me if I did.

So Miller won’t get her hair and nails done for a while. She’ll survive and be released once the matter resolves itself in accordance with the political cycle of things. You want to be a journalist? Understand that certain risks -- typically only under extraordinary circumstances -- occasionally come with the job.

A national shield law is a bad idea. We don’t need one. Who are these people making such a big deal over this all of the sudden?

First, no crime has yet been found. The crime would presumably be a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. To answer whether this occurred an investigation should determine when this "leak" may have occurred, and what Plame's classification was at that time. If she was not a covert CIA operative at the time, then no crime was committed under the Act. If she was, then a crime was committed and those involved, including any journalists, should be punished accordingly. The special prosecutor has "investigated" two years and found nothing to indict anyone. Since it cannot find a crime, it must look for some other charge. Rather than jailing a journalist the prosecutor should be looking at CIA sources to find if a leak occurred, when it occurred, and what Plame's status was at the time. The information needed in this investigation can likely all be found at the CIA. It should have all been pretty simple, but for dirty politics.

Second, prior restraint means just that, nothing hindering beforehand someone in the press finding, researching, and printing a story. If the courts should ultimately have the power to coerce any citizen into being revealed as a source, that would be a prior restraint. If I have information about certain corruption in government I want to know that a journalist cannot be coerced into coughing up my identity. Period. If not then I don't speak and the "prior restraint" of source coercion has kept not only the journalist from a story, but the public; too bad, but the safety of both my family and myself far outweigh the "public's right to know."

Most state laws that have shield laws still force journalists to testify if they themselves have witnessed a crime, and that's as it should be. The federal courts should leave this matter to the states. However, taking the fact that the state laws vary, and federal courts rulings contradict one another, we'll probably eventually have a decision on the matter by a federal court, and then by the the SC. Given the SC's history, I don't look forward to it.

Until then, I'll take my chances with elected state legislatures over an intrusive unelected for life federal court system any day.

As for the privilege being for media journalists, go out and investigate a story on one of your local corrupt politicians, publish it from your basement, and any and all laws apply to you as well.