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."
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.
If you really think that, what methods do you use to get information about the world?
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
He said it already -- he knows the news is fiction because a fictional movie said so.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
And this is exactly what they were thinking of when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution:
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
My blog
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.
You are kidding right? This ruling just makes it harder for the real reporters, who do call up sources, to do their jobs.
The lazy-ass reporters who already do nothing but re-write press releases won't change a thing in how they do business.
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 part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?"
what part of "Congress shall make no law...." did YOU miss?
AND - how does requiring a reporter to obey the same laws and judicial orders that I have to obey abridge the freedom of the press. No one in this case is asking for prior restraint on publication or prosecution for publication; apparently a crime is being investigated (and I do believe that tipping off the subject of an investigation, allowing them to destroy evidence, is a crime).
I am no fan of government, but I am also no fan of knee-jerk responses to complex issues. A reporter for the NY Times is not above the law.
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
I think you are mistaken in this case. It was not the legislative but the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records. While the legislators are not to be excused, the violations of our constitution today occur far more often in a judiciary that is increasingly acting according to personal opinions rather than to the intent of the law.
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
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
You're assuming the press is doing their job. From what I've seen, the last time they did their job was circa 1980. I believe there is a quote along the lines of "I don't want NBC reporting on Disney. I don't want Disney reporting on Disney." from the CEO of Disney about a decade back. He didn't want NBC reporting any negative publicity on it's parent company.
The news for the past 20 years has seen itself soley as an entertainment service. They don't care about the truth one bit anymore. They're in the business of selling adds to make money, not to inform the public.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
The problem is that any dirty deed or violation of domestic/international law by a government entity will de facto be a national security secret. And this is precisely the type of news that journalists should be reporting.
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.
But they didn't make any laws. They simply stated that reporters are not above the law. Nothing new here, move along please.
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
I missed anything about anonymous sources in the constitution. I also missed the "reporters are super-citizens above the laws" part.
Freedom of the press is a right that The People have. It's not a special Get Out of Jail Free Card for the NY Times.
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
As always when reading this stuff, my first thought was that the media shouldn't have gotten so obsessed with damaging the Bush administration over the Plame "scandal" nonsense that they demanded that punishing leakers take priority over all else.
The irony in your statement is that there would be no reason to try and "damage the Bush administration" if they hadn't willfully and maliciously acted to damage Valerie Plame's career and personal safety, simply for being married to someone that spoke out about the lies on WMDs.
You think that reporters should be punished for "damaging the reputation of government?" What kind of fascist, repressive country do you think we live in? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" don't you understand?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
The reporters could probably (and arguably should) be charged with interference with an ongoing investigation. The right to a free press is (in my understanding) a right to write, for public consumption. It is not a right to take any random action in order to obtain facts for said writing.
If I have been assigned to write a story about the psychological condition of an executioner, am I justified in grabbing someone and "executing" them in the furtherance of my story? Of course not; it's both illegal and wrong.
It would, in my opinion, be one thing if they had been tipped off by this anonymous source, sat on it until the raids had actually happened, then used the information in their stories. Instead, they took the information they got, and contacted the targets of the raids in advance. Absurd.
Reporters are not magic special people. They should abide by the same laws and rules of reasonable conduct as the rest of us.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
You need to draw a distinction between "The Press" and "Television Media".
There are plenty of newspapers and news websites out there that really try to do a good job, break a lot of ground, and do the sort of reporting that holds the government in check.
I agreee with you about TV though. God they suck. They ALL suck. I firmly believe that the goddamn Daily Show is the best news on television, and that is so very, very sad.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
She has the constitutional right to publish her article and take the actions she did. That doesn't mean she has the constitutional right to be free of any and all consequences of her behaviour.
And what freedom of the press has been violated here? The right to comit a crime? If you hear about the FBI planning on raiding Scam Co. offices tomorrow and you tip them off and allow them to destroy evidence you have comitted a crime. As a normal citizen you can be compelled to give up your phone records. What freedom of the press allows them to be above a normal citizen?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
They've developed as the fourth estate of government. And that means that the other three aren't happy about losing any sort of power to the new guys. So, how does the press balance that out? They bias coverage. They put on the partisans that support their own agendas.
And so I agree with you - let them work.
This isn't right or wrong, as they are no different from any other group-in-power who sees a watchdog (even the watchdogs themselves) moving in on their turf and influence. Hearst's Yello Journalism helped to spark sentiment for a war, and Vietnam coverage helped to end it.
So again, I prefer this to having the old 3 estate system, because the press is a large group and so will offer me a great deal of information than if I just read Congressional transcripts or judicial case reviews all day long. They help me filter info, even as they filter what I receive. This is why blogging is an interesting addidtion to the cacaphony - I can overwhelm myself with different perspectives, and I get to use my judgement.
I no longer have only channel 4, 5, and 7 telling me 3 possible interpretations - I can choose from 457 people all telling me the relevance of an idea. This is also what history is about. Whereas most actual events or facts are not disputed, their importance to history and the world around them can be endlessly debated. If I get to read 2 histories about America, one from Gore Vidal and one from Simon & Schuster textbooks - then I can decide which interpretation of events had more influence.
I thought that was what the promise of a free(ish) press was all about. No complaints here. I don't expect them to be completely free of bias just as I don't expect my priest to be completely free of sin. How could they be human otherwise?
And by what moral right do the courts compel them to testify in the first place?
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.
So your saying that if I pass a law that says you can't run red lights, and some member of the press runs a redlight in presuit of their story, that law should be stricken from the books.
Get real, reporters are NOT above the law.
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.
"I am no fan of government, but I am also no fan of knee-jerk responses to complex issues. A reporter for the NY Times is not above the law."
Unless it's your knee. Do you really believe Slashdot is the first to discuss the issues and nuances surrounding the protection of press freedom? News reporting, before the Feds turned it into info-tainment via media amalgamation, was meant to be a critical component of a free society and specially protected. An unimpeded press was seen as a neccessary public service. Do you also have a problem with the fire deprtment or police having 'extra rights'? Or should only government employees be permitted them?
The press should have no greater freedom than anyone else. Rather, we should all enjoy the same freedom reporters do.
The problem isn't real reporters calling people up and investigation stories to do thier job. It is thier enticment to get someone else to break the law While tring to do thier job. If someone is breaking the law in order for the reporter to profit, there should be no protection in it. In almost everyt other situation, this would be considered conspiracy to commit a crime and in some instances carry a greater penalty then the actual crime in itself.
Without know who you are or anything else about you, I would bet that your stand would be different if the story was about you parrents death. Imagine reading about it in the paper, then going to thier house to check on them and finding them dead. Then when trying to capture thier muderers, the reporter claims confidentiality. The anonymity of his contact is important. He even fights releasing phone records so the cops can track them down the old fashioned way.
You might say this is totaly different then whats going on here. I say it isn't. A reporter became aware of impending actions and gave notice to the suspected terrorist organisation or terrorist aiding organizations. These groups were suspected of funding (directly or indirectly) terrorist who are or attempting to kill inocent people. The problem is that someone in a position of law enforcment informed suspects of thier impending fate. They did this to gain favor of some sort or to undermine an investigation that might some day save the lives of some inocent civilians or military personel who joined for a way out of a shitty life.
Being a reporter shouldn't give them a license to protect criminals. Especialy when that protection is just to gain another breaking lead and give them fame and fortune. I don't understand how anyone could think that a person acting in thier own self interest should be held to such high reguards. If something truely illegal is going on, those doing the leaking would be covered by a wistle blowers policy. If it isn't illegal and the leaker just thinks people should know about deep dark government secretes or that those criminals should have an egde, then they should be prosecuted. I imagine this whole stroy came about because some one in a government position wanted to protect a terrorist organization or worse yet, the reporters offered a reward and they just wanted to profit.
Please give link or name of this reporter who aided terrorists, or did you just make this up?
_Truth_ provides a check on the press.
If some journalist comes out with a sensationalist/controversial story, then it behooves other journalists & members of the public to check & double-check the "facts" in that story to see if they can be substantiated. If it turns out that the facts are false or can't be substantiated, then that journalist's credibility will be significantly reduced (ala Dan Rather).
About the only valid reasons to prevent a journalist from publishing a story is to stop them from disseminating info on how to kill large #s of people (instructions on building WMDs for instance), to protect undercover intelligence resources, or to protect short-term military objectives. (Let me know if you can think of any other valid reason not in this list.)
Any other attempt to stifle the press is more likely to protect the government/agents of the government rather than serving the public good, and should not be allowed by any agent of any branch of the government.
If there's no shield law, meeting with sources in secret isn't going to help. If you know their name, and you're compelled to testify, you have to give it up or go to jail. It doesn't matter if you met with them in person, over a disposable cellphone, via IM, etc.
If something truely illegal is going on, those doing the leaking would be covered by a wistle blowers policy.
If you think retribution isn't VERY often taken out on whistleblowers, even when a law/policy is in place, I have a very large bridge to sell you.
The press has had a long standing rule of not giving out sources, and for a VERY good reason.
Holy red herring batman.
How does giving a reporter a ticket impinge on freedom of the press? Stuff getting in the way of a story is so amazingly commonplace in the news industry, you can't even imagine. Sometimes you'll get situations where reporters know the story for months or years before they can get enough people willing to confirm it on the record, for it to be printed. By your logic, it'd be lawful for them to torture people until they confirmed the story, because they have some kind of right to it.
On the other hand, by forcing them to divulge all sources of information whenever there is a suspicion of wrong doing, you're basically making it impossible to have anonymous sources. Now, I've got less problem with this for TV, because I always get the feeling that when they say "anonymous sources" they mean "some hobo I was talking to when I was snorking coke in the bathroom", but when you look at a story like the Watergate story, where the whole thing was broken by an anonymous source, and confirmed by non-anonymous sources, you have to think that story would never have been broken if the government had the right to subpoena phone records, and use illegal wiretaps to determine the identity of the source.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
And so how, in this fantasy world if yours where reporters are all getting rich for reporting on crime, would someone get a person who might be marginally involved in carrying out a small part of a much larger crime, to inform the public about the much larger crime, and who is carrying it out?
As I've said before, whistleblower laws very often just don't work. People are either not give the whistleblower status that they deserve, or retribution is carried out by others, or under guise that it's for something else.
Protecting the source is the only way these things will ever come out. Do you really think it would have been better for the country if Deep Throat had not come forward? If so, there are a lot of totalitarian regimes I'm sure you'd be happy to live under. For myself, I prefer a free press.
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.