Slashdot Mirror
Ruling to Make Reporters Act Like Drug Dealers?
netbuzz writes "A 2-1 New York appeals court ruling yesterday will require two reporters to cough up their telephone records over a property-seizure case unless it gets reversed on appeal. As the dissenting judge noted, this kind of erosion of press protections will have reporters 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.' It's long past time for a federal shield law."
" 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.'"
Cool! Just like the movies. Leave it like this, the reporters will have fun.
This space intentionally left blank.
Good, and now when the phone records are divulged, we'll find out that reporters actually don't talk to anybody. All news is ficticious. Remember the movie Wag the Dog?
A free press is bad, mmkay?
they get to do super secret spy stuff... now I want to be a reporter...
Both are always calling some shady source to get information. One is looking to kill someone and bury them in a dark place, the other is looking to bury someone in a spotlight.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Who gets shielded and who doesn't? Is a New York Times reporter automatically better than a blogger? What about a press flack? The 1st Amendment is for *everybody*, not just reporters. The idea of creating supercitizens with special rights doesn't sit well with me. If your problem is with the way the government can invade our privacy, propose new rules for government behavior that don't trample on the ideal of equality before the law.
the number of porn titles has exploded since the 70's, so the sources will have plenty of names to pick from....Though I doubt journalists will be very pleased at having to write "my source 'Asian anal adventure volume 5' has informed me that..."
Monstar L
How about the source article instead of a blog about it?
o nes.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02ph
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
If the current administration will pass any laws on journalism it will most likely look more like the laws Mr. Bush's special pal Putin passes.
It sells more papers to those who like-their-meat-cut-up-for-them-into-bite-sized pieces.
If lawyers are going to willingly undermine national security, then they deserved to be treated as such.
If you made a law that made it illegal to knowingly distribute classified information (for profit or otherwise) then this wouldn't be an issue and reporters could go back to telling us what to wear, how to act and where to place our votes.
"I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea
Regardless whether it's time for a shield law, it certainly isn't time for a judge to decide that, since there isn't one, he should create one out of whole cloth by way of judicial fiat. Thank God only one out of three judges thought that professional reporters shouldn't have to gather information and facts in accordance with the same laws the rest of us have to abide by.
Everything netbuzz submits is from his blog. Not a bad way to get your page views up.
Kilroy was here.
The problem with freedom, is that there are always going to be people who use it in ways you don't approve of.
There are two ways to deal with this:
1) Remove the freedom
2) Understand that freedom doesn't just apply to things you approve of.
Now, option 1 is real popular these days, but I myself prefer option 2, especially when it comes to rights touched on in the First Amendment.
I hear people sneering about the First all the damn time. The "Hippie" amendment right? Right to pornography? Right for those press jackals to pry into your life?
The First amendment contains nearly every single right essential to democracy. Assembly, Speech, Press, Redress of Greviances, and Freedom of Religion/Prohibition of State sponsored religion. This fricking government has made inroads against every single part of this amendment, and I have no doubt they'd love to see it weakened.
So don't let your disdain for Fox news blind you on this one. Whenever the government starts imposing penalties against people for publishing true statements, its everybodys problem.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Holy crap, in the last 3 days on slashdot, I've read stories repoting with problems with your (U.S.) police force, youre election system, and now your 'free press'. I have to ask, what the fuck is going on in your country, and how much more will you have to see to do something about it??? Your apathy is not only going to cost you, but the rest of the globe as well.
What if you're a reporter for "High Times?"
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
All the calls will be to and from the DNC!
One question I have: if communication between reporter and source is truly anonymous then how does any reporter know if the information is legitmate? At some point anonymity had better break down between reporter and source. Because when a reporter tells me something, which they say is news, I had better damn well know what their source is and know that it's legit, or they are going to be hard pressed to get me to believe a word of what they're saying.
Another question is about the supposed 'only' methods of achieving the anonymity I above questioned.
From the article: "Only a clearly written federal shield law will give reporters and their anonymous sources the confidence they need to communicate outside of darkened parking garages."
Darkened parking garages? Please. How about just an office? Or a restaurant. Or, well, anywhere. If someone really wants to evesdrop on a reporter I can't imagine the reporter is going to be able to stop them by simply going to a parking garage. How about a public phone?
I am really just waiting for someone to tell me why I should believe anything a reporter says when their source is completely unknown due to total anonymity.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
"Ruling Makes Judges Look Like Fucking Idiots"
Perhaps if today's reporters stopped making up half of their stories and/or stopped giving away national security secrets, perhaps this would not be happening. I am not a supporter of the Bush administration, but I have noticed an extreme bias to publish any story that makes the president look bad, even if it could possibly help our enemies.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Just because you are a reporter you aren't above the law. If I or anyone else would have to reveal something under subpoena or on a witness stand if it were part of a criminal case (and leaking classified documents is a crime), then so should the high and mighty New York Times.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
If you work at an agency and you think there is something illegal going on the proper procedure is to call the US Attorney's office, not the New York Times. The person who does the former is a whistleblower. The person who does the latter is a criminal.
Corporatism != Free Market
They will also happen to act like "Terrorist".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ann Coulter, is that you?!
Why should reporters be free not to testify when the rest of us can be compelled to do so? Why should they be able to refuse to testify to illegal activities?
This story is very misleading.
The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.
Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?
I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.
News paper publishers and reporters in general, like cops, feel they are "special" and no laws apply to them, only to average Joe. Plus I'm tired of all the hate in politics and journalism.
the past few years have seen an increase in bad journalism.
fake stores, bias(left and right),stories that were bought and paid for by companies trying to astro turf the people,,,,,,,,
like many industries if they are unwilling to maintain their own professionalism, then this was bound to happen.
not saying i approve, but many other industries have to deal with similar problems.
One question I have: if communication between reporter and source is truly anonymous then how does any reporter know if the information is legitmate?
Probably the same way that the cops validate anonymous tips... do a little legwork to verify it yourself. If your anonymous source provides you with information, and you verify it; it must be true.
Otherwise, you are right, there would be no way to know it. Hopefully, a reporter (this includes bloggers) would not publish information that they do not know to be true. If they do that, one would hope that the public at large has enough brains to not trust that particular news outlet.
then the OSI, now finally it's morphed into . . . erm, uh . . . what did the old OSI turn into after that? Anybody remember? Did it ultimately become our CIA? I find I can't remember, ever since that weekend at the hospital in Virginia . . . or was that a weekend drinking tequila in Sonora? Damn! It's almost as though I was force-fed psychoactive drugs and - something - was said to me over and over. Why can't I remember?
They do it because they are communists. They are trying to sap our precious bodily fluids!
You know what really pisses me off about these things? Half the Americans here are saying stuff like "oh well, it's only an isolated incident" (in the police case), or "oh well, it's not like it matters anyway" (in the election(!) case), or "oh well, in this case it's okay 'cause of 'national security' (think of the children)" (in this case). What they fail to do is put it all together, and see what it all adds up to.
If only one of these things had happened, yeah, it wouldn't be too much to get concerned about. But all our rights are being eroded every fucking day. That's not an "isolated incident," that's a head-long sprint towards totalitarian fascism!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Oh, well . . . at least there's no Psi Corps (yet).
Freedom of the Press is not the right to withold vital information from a criminal/civil case. It is the right to talk about what is going on by publishing information. Reporters have no more right to withold information than me or you -- They are not "Super Citizens" or a superior class with "Special Rights". I personal think its a pretty sh*tty thing that someone can use a reporter to slander or defame someone (and that is what is going on in the vast majority of cases of "undisclosed sources") and use reporters as thier proxies. If someone has something to say, they should stand up and say it and take responsibility for what they say
From this federal government? Sounds like you've been patronizing those drug dealers mentioned.
Welcome to the new reality: the government gets full access to your business, but you get no access into their business.
Between this, easily-hackable voting machines, and yet more police abuses, it's been a really bad week for the Constitution.
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
If you have read or watched All the President's Men, you will remember the secrecy that went into their meetings. Even though that is largely exagerated, it is not that far off the mark.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
If the news reports information that was ordered not to be released and doesn't come forward with the source then this is obstruction of justice.
Or patriotism or terrorism depending on how you look at it.
People that think there is such a thing as "law of the land" and "justice" should be on the lookout for those who pervert justice and the law into something that are clearly not.
When you are concerned more about the law itself and not the spirit of the law, you often get blinded to this downfall.
Of course seeking a spirit unto itself at the cost of the law is also bad... Where as you willfully ignore the law to seek justice or your own vision of it.
Sometimes the moral thing to do is not the legal thing to do and vice versa.
If you lived under a government or country in which if you revealed your sources you knew they would be hauled away in the middle of the night never to heard of again (either through mafia, government agents, or a paramilitary groups), then you have some moral ground to stand on for breaking the law.
I'm not saying this is the case, but "obstruction of justice" clause never trumps the inalienable rights of man.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Compairing Reporters to Drug Dealers...you know Drug Dealers have feeling too.
Please stop forming any opinions on what goes on here. Seriously, the news-ish bites on Slashdot are not a good way to get your information on the state of the US. To name just a few problems:
1) Slashdot is highly sensationalistic when it comes to political stories. They tend to report things in a way that casts an extreme negative light on the situation, leaving out relivants mitigating facts and such.
2) They tend to not check sources and facts very well. Heck they don't even tend to check if they've already posted something very well. You cannot rely on teh information as all that accurate.
3) Slashdot has very anti-government, even perhaps anarchistic tendancies. They see most any effort to control things as a massive problem.
Well a site like that, you don't really want to use for your news, just like you probably wouldn't want to rely on a more right-wing, pro government site as they are going to downplay anything bad the government does.
Yes, bad things happen in the US. Always has been, probably always will be. Police abuse their power, the government has corruption problems, etc. However I don't care where you live, you do a little research, you'll find your country has the same kinds of problems. There's no magical perfect bastion of freedom. All countries have faults.
However the US is not a dictatorship, we have not fallen in to a police state, etc. There are disturbing trends right now, things that many of us are working to fight against, but it's not like we are in the horrible way, which a revolution is the only way out of. If you believe that, well then you've been getting your news from the wrong sources.
If you are truly interested in what's going on, you need to spend some time on it. You need to get information form multiple sources, you need to try and hear all sides of the story, you need to make sure you understand all the facts. Don't run off screaming the end of the world when Slashdot reports an incident of rights abuses.
It's called "press credentials" and have existed for some time (remember the newspaperman with a little white card that read PRESS stuck in his hat?). People with press credentials get to snoop around crime scenes, access closed areas, and so on in ways that ordinary citizens can't.
Sometimes these credentials are literal credentials (ie, an ID badge from their employer) and sometimes they're issued credentials (White House, for example). This gives them better access and in some ways better responses from people.
I agree that freedom of speech and the press should be universal and not restricted to the etablished corporate news media, but it seems there needs to be some practical way of differentiating between people honestly pursuing journalism "in the public interest" and the merely curious or aspiring. You can't fit an unlimited number of people in a briefing room or allow anyone who wants it access to crime or disaster scenes.
I know it's illegal to destroy evidence in an ongoing investigation.
But is it illegal to conduct yourself in a way that won't create evidence specifically for the purpose of avoiding a future investigation?
I hope not.
Actually saying "the constitution says X and it means X, Y, and Z" really is an argument.
In this case it just happens to be a pretty weak one.
It's just a public discussion.
The think with functioning democracies (or democratic republics or whatever) is that they seem to be at odds with themselves and in a perpetual state of chaos and confusing.
To people from more authoritarian systems it seems crazy that anything works at all.
I would argue free discussion, debate and the apparent chaos is what gives real strength, instead of the mere appearance of strength.
Even if a federal shield law for journalists were to be passed, it still seem niave for a journalist to rely on it for protection of his or her sources.
When communicating sensitive information always take procautions to protect your information and always assume that someone is listening that shouldn't be. When using any means of public communication (telephone, the Internet, the Post Office, UPS, etc.) you are literally handing your message to a third party (or parties) to pass along to the final destination. While encryption makes it more difficult for a middle-man, it is by no means compeltely secure.
The decision to make is which is more imporatant: convenience in transitting the information or security of the information being transmitted?
The good news is that one in three judges actually gets it.
is a law that requires every story printed to carry a (R) or (D) next to
the writer's name so that we know their political affiliation. Same as
they do whenever they show any politician on TV. That way
we can decide whether the story is worth believing or not.
Or a sticky, pinned, or something special attached to a post like this.
Did the poster write, posit, or add anything? No, it was merely an observation from an outsider that basically says, WTF????
I'm sure everybody has heard the crap from older people about "Back in the good ol days..." and "its surely not like it used to be..." and similar, but I do live here in the US, and I am witnessing a digression right in front of my eyes.
Yes, we do have issues with our police force, our elections, and our "free" press. Also, to date, our police, our elections, and our press are still better than probably 90+% of the world's population, but its the systematic demoralization of said institutions that is bothering me and others.
This trend appears to have begun in this country after WWII, when we began thinking that we were "the shit", the bully on the block, the world police, NATO, the economic center, or however you want to phrase it (all have truths to them).
Since WWII, we have been in a state of chronic war and debt. Kinda like a macrocosm of the population inside, eh?
Oh, and I read yesterday where the organization that was set up to rebuild the WTC complex after the 9/11/01 attacks was calling it quits after 5 years of nothing. Well, lets rephrase the nothing. More like after spending $2 billion dollars of our money with nothing in return. Yes, that is $400 million dollars a year. To put this on a scale that people can relate to. The WTC complex was insured for $3.5 billion, and Silverstein tried to get $7.0 billion because 2 buildings were demolished (actually 3, but who's counting?)
I saw a Penn and Teller episode about this same thing, and they were comparing this lack of rebuilding and everything to how casinos in Las Vegas can get torn down and rebuilt overnight, yet the financial center of the US can't get anything besides nothing after spending over $2 billion?
Makes me think anyway...
Similar to working with drug dealers, reporters working with inside sources to leak government secrets is ILLEGAL.
1.) The reporters do have the freedom to publish under the 1st amendment, but the Constition gives no right to press secrecy.
2.) The government leaker is committing a crime. Because reporters don't have the right to secrecy, they can be used to uncover the lawbreaker.
How did the NYT know the feds were about to seize someone's assets? It's likely that someone else broke the law in disclosing that information, not the NYT. If you'd prefer a country which only allows its press to print what is convenient, I hear Cuba has great weather.
Stop posting headlines that end with question marks?
Anyone else find it funny that the trial of scooter libby has been delayed until nearly a month after mid-term elections?
I think, though, that the mere possibility of such problems should be enough to scare us away.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Wasn't that how it used to be? Or have I just been watching too many movies? I thought that was what created the near mythical (and recently reveiled) "deep throat" source.
Time to review the X-files "Plausible Deniability."
Think Deeply.
They can grow condoms from stem cells now? Wow, that tech is really coming along!
If the law made did not affect the confidentiality of the press (so that law was not unconstitutional) and this is not making a law that does so either, then how can the ruling say that the law does apply? That would make it affect the constitutionality of the law, which you've just said didn't happen.
that is perpetrating these injustices is going to protect the press?
Now that the vote no longer works in the US, only an armed uprising is going to rid us of the tyranny our government is becoming and has begun.
You ned to start hiding your guns and ammo NOW while you still can and while the consitution can still protect you. It won't be long before it can't anymore.
Regardless of what you think of drug dealers, most have never worked for NYT and do not deserve to be equated to drug dealers.
It's amazing to me that when Apple was going after a reporter, requesting that the court compel him to reveal his sources for use in a civil case, most posters supported Apple. Now, when the prosecutor requests the court compel a reporter to reveal his sources for use in a criminal case, it's a constitutional violation.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
If we are talking about special protection, there must first be talk about how to define "the press". Who counts as a member of the press? And why should these people be treated differently than the rest of us? What kind of protection should they get? If you say they should never have to reveal their source, than reporters can fabricate stories with blatant disregard for facts. A reporter should try to only use anonymous sources when it is an absolute necessity. If the reporter knows his bluff can be called, it may actually be better for truth in reporting. Why is it a tragedy for reporters to have to jump through hoops to get their story? Whoever said reporting should be easy? I don't see the current state of affairs as an erosion of press freedom. They are just as free as they ever were. Freedom never implies freedom from consequences. "The press" must deal with the consequences of their words just like the rest of us.
> So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
Perhaps you can point me to the part that says there are one set of laws for thee and me and another set (subset actually) that apply to the NYT. It cuts both ways, Congress shall make NO law, period. No special favors and no special restrictions. America is a classless society before the law, Presidents and Congressmen are equal to Journalists who are equal to Professors who are equal to the lowliest homeless bum. If the lowliest bum can be convicted of Obstruction of Justice for tipping of a dope dealer of a bust he heard about in exchange for a rock of crack cocaine then Judith Miller should be facing Obstruction of Justice charges for tipping off terrorists of an impending bust in exchange her awards.
Yes I know it doesn't really work that way in practice, the most Ms. Miller faces is loss of her phone records, Cynthia McKinney wasn't indicted for a crime any of us would be in prison for, Rep Kennedy crashes into the barrier in front of Congress and only has to go to rehab, etc. etc. But that is the ideal we should all be striving for. Everyone is equal before the law. Unless you wish to argue that nobody should ever be compelled to testify and that conspiracy laws should be stricken from the lawbooks for everyone, then Ms. Miller must be compelled to either testify or face conspiracy charges. (Can't do both, 5th Amendment forbids it.)
Democrat delenda est
Is the person who started the whole controversy was lieing in order to willfully and maliciously damage the reputation of the White House.
Yes, sir, good ol' Joe Wilson himself was the one who was busy spreading lies to the newspapers, first anonymously, and then in a bylined NYT Op-Ed.
Of course, people then asked, who sent Wilson on this trip? It appears that the Administration made the fatal mistake of telling the truth.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
1) The feds turned nothing. It was business that turned it.
2) It is specially protected even now. Freedom of the press? In other words, the freedom to print what you will. It does not mean a reporter can be an accomplice to a crime and get a pass go card.
3) Straw. The police and fire departments are not capitolist organizations, bent on making money. The comparison is ludicrous.
Dude, they didn't just declassify some insider information, the government case is charging that the two reporters from the NYT tipped off two Islamic charities to impending FBI raids -- charities that were under suspicion of funneling money over-seas to terrorist groups. How do we know they were doing that, well it turns out that the Bush Administration was monitoring overseas money transactions (you may have heard about this when it was leaked last December by the NYT).
One of the reporters involved, Ms. Miller, was the same one sent to jail for refusing to divulge her source who leaked that Valera Plame was employed in secret by the CIA. The reason that is important is she may have recommended her husband Willson for the assignment (on behalf of the CIA) of investigating a Saddam nuclear material deal prior to the US-Iraq war, a study that concluded inconclusively that Saddam was not persuing nuclear material.
Your basically describing link jacking. I hate it with a passion as well. The myspace generation - how many pageviews i get shows how cool i am - is responsible. The first thing i look for in any linked blog is the link to the next level of blogosphere (aka hell) or heaven permitting, i can ascend to the highest level and get to the actual news source. Everyone thinks that their opinion matters and is important, but odds are its probably not. (yes i am aware of the irony in making such a statement. pretend i deleted this instead of posting)
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
... and anyone who isn't using something like Skype or third-party cell phone to call a source whom a federal prosecutor might want to talk to is crazy. No, I don't know that anyone is listenting in, or that any of my sources might be the subject of an investigation. But it's just so easy to take precautions, it's dumb not to.
I use Skype when I want to keep something quiet. PGP isn't the world's most difficult tool for e-mail. I keep my home system double-NATed, I clean up my tracks frequently and don't ever use an easy-to-find e-mail account if I need to talk to someone quiety, i.e. firstname.lastname-AT-Mymediacompany.dork
Here's a gem: I don't use the company phone if I need to talk to a really good source. If I'm super-leery of something, I use someone else's cell phone, as in not a colleague.
That's not to say I'm sitting on information that could do serious harm just for a good story. If I find out that there's an immediate threat to someone's life or property, or there's a threat to national security (if I ever get a story that good), I'll sing like a bird. Journalists have to remember they're citizens, too, and I don't want any blood on my hands.
But if it's somebody trying to root out a whistleblower, too bad. I'm not going to make it easy.
Journalists make a claim that they require certain guarentees of confidentiality to make the news, but what makes them so special that journalism gets special breaks that the whole of society cannot enjoy?
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
This was not a "property-seizure" case in any fair sense of the word. It was a terror funding investigation. And the information illegally passed to these reporters was then given to the targets of that investigation.
This is exactly why we need to vote out the rest of the 46% of the Democrats that are left in the federal system... get rid of all that obstructionism, the lying, and actually let the party in power start making changes... If we had acted on the Energy Policy proposals dating back to 2001, we wouldn't be in our fuel-crunch today... Luckily, the tax cuts got through, and the economic indicators are all pointing at the next 5 years being another boom cycle... just long enough for the biggest drain on our society, the Baby Boomers, to hit retirement and suck the life out of our medical and social security systems...
Here's to a young person like me working for the rest of my life putting money into a system that's going to be bankrupt because of elderly "liberals" who couldn't plan for the future, sucking my money out with nothing left for my generation...
Gore? Maybe. At least he's intelligent, genuinely cares about the state of the world, and had the balls to work diligently at shrinking the government. Kerry? The man just screamed "stooge". Gore probably would have won if a) The Bush family didn't get to personally oversee the Florida election and remove 10,000 black voters from the lists for having names similar to convicts, and b) Americans didn't despise anyone with an IQ over 90. Kerry probably couldn't have won unless Bush had strangled a baby to death with his bare hands on live television (or worse yet, caused a human nipple to be revealed! The horror!) Footnote: It's interesting to see just how active Gore was as Vice President. Given Cheney's similarly high level of involvement, does this mark a new era of VPs who do more than act as tie-breakers in the senate?
This is not just another bad government. This is a truly shitty, awful government that has turned America from an inspiring nation with checks and balances and a clearly defined seperation of powers, to one in which the president has TOTAL power to do anything he wants, with the machinery in place to silence vocal critics and propogandize the people into submission. If you valued freedom or democracy even slightly, you'd be haranguing everyone you could find about this government's evils, and getting them to vote for a real party. An actual patriot would be stalking Washington DC with a hunting rifle, trying to find a nice grassy knoll or something.
Why bother rebuilding it? In twenty years, Manhattan is going to be under ten feet of water. Of course, not being particularly sentimental myself, I find the idea of the 9/11 memorial being the site of an artificial reef to be pretty funny.
Hey man, go easy okay, you haven't seen nothing yet. If you were thinking for yourself then you would
laugh at the thought of voting for neither the democrat nor the republican side of the Global Freedom
Reduction Party. You would be able to compare socialism with capitalism and see that it's always the
same kind of scum from North Korea to Beverly Hills that thrives on the labor of other people.
"1) The feds turned nothing. It was business that turned it."
Bullshit. Starting with Reagan FCC laws preventing massive conglomeration of media ownership were rolled back. The line is direct between, for example, Clearchannel owning 2000 stations and radio dropping news. It's basic media history, educate yourself.
2) It is specially protected even now. Freedom of the press? In other words, the freedom to print what you will. It does not mean a reporter can be an accomplice to a crime and get a pass go card.
Parses as English but lacks the fundamental conceptual underpinnings required for 'coherent' status. Or is this another of those 'protect the source, sell the farm' arguments? No room beyond black or white?
3) Straw. The police and fire departments are not capitolist organizations, bent on making money. The comparison is ludicrous.
Washington = Capitol. Economic systems employ Capital. What's the relevance? Are you arguing for concentration of any exceptional power into the hands of government bodies only? There are more exceptions to that rule than you've obviously researched which will require rolling back. Ambulances, private companies. No more speeding guys, no running red lights. And the noise infractions! You're doing it for personal profit and demanding excess rights and considerations above 'I/Us/We'. The social utility and benefit to society you provide isn't an argument, you damn elitists!
Can you people possibly, just for once, put aside viewing every consideration in the light of us/them and think outside the tiny boxes in which you've gleefully constrained yourselves? I swear you'ld all rather see society become a living hell rather than make the smallest of sacrifices for the Common Good.
No one seems to respect my freedom to do things they don't like. So, why should I support anyone else's? Fuck 'em.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Looks like real journalists will need to start practicing OPSEC: Operational Security.
Randomized behavior, encryption, phony meetings with non-sources along with the real meetings with sources, avoiding phone and email for any important information.
Crappy spy novels with reasonably realistic depictions of tradecraft should be part of journalist school in place of the sanctimonious preening over the importance of the role of the press in a free society.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Crooks have been trying for years to muzzle the press. Now they have found a way. Just tabloidize it!
That's right, give the crooks plausible deniability because every good witness will be rightfully too scared of retribution to speak publicly. A hidden source will have no court presence as his/her testimony will be hearsay, and hearsay is only admissible in court if submitted by government in prosecution of citizens in up to capital cases, but citizens cannot bring hearsay evidence into court to their defense. All irrelevant anyway as most signifigant future trials will be in secret with neither confrontation of accusers, publicly read charge (secret charges), nor opportunity for discovery or view of evidence against potentialy executable defendants. The constitution! It is now a dead letter. This is no longer the America you once knew. Get out while you still can. Even Mexico is freer!
from the first graph though I figure you're just saying:
"Nothing to see here. Move along."