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."
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.
Okay this is definitely off-topic (and flamebait), but I gotta get something off my chest --
All this "social aggregation" stuff with Slashdot and Digg and Fark and whatever else - it's a giant blogspam circle jerk. I am bored with it. Somebody invent Web 3.0 already.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Not sure what laws you think don't apply to journalists...There is no license you need to be a journalist. There is no law against starting your own news paper/channel/website. They are just regular people.
The question you should be asking, is, why are regular people not accorded this protection? The answer has been (until recently) that you are unless those records are opened by a court subpoena, due to the fact that you are suspected of committing a crime.
The problem in this case is that the reporters aren't committing a crime. You see the difference? The government is forcing records out of regular citizens to use in witchhunts against whistleblowers and suspected lawbreakers. There is no part of that that is in any way cool.
Mind you, I think Judith Miller should be clubbed to death like a baby seal, but you can't stand up for freedoms only for people you like.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Maybe you should read the part about the powers of Judiciary. The Judiciary has no power to pass laws. (Judicial orders are another story, of course).
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
My blog
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.
If the information they want was part of a investigative story you did, you'd have the same protections.
I am sick and tired of the Times and other blatantly anti war publications like them putting our soldiers and our security at risk.
Oh right. Its the journalists fault. Not the people that SENT the troops there to begin with, not the people shooting at the troops. Its the journalists.
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.
There's a problem if the US attorney's office won't do anything about it though, especially if its corrupt government you're talking about. The correct answer IS going to the press. That's the only way to be sure the journalist isn't silenced in some way. I fail to see how telling anyone of an illegal activity is themselves a criminal. Maybe the people being called out SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ACTING ILLEGALLY TO BEGIN WITH.
Your logic defies belief. Its not the people breaking the law that's the problem.. is the people telling us about it??
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.