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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The "no law" part.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Wrong. I'm not writing blog entries that refer to content elsewhere, then submitting my own blog to aggregation sites. I am a consumer of such things, and it has just struck me on the head today that I would prefer to consume the meat of the story as opposed to the styrafoam container in which it is delivered. My personal scale finally tipped to the point where I feel I am consuming more packaging than content.
As it stands right now, I don't see any other option (apart from being less informed), and that irks me.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
the judiciary branch requiring them to cough up phone records
They don't have them already? Apparently these reporters didn't use AT&T.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
The press should have no greater freedom than anyone else. Rather, we should all enjoy the same freedom reporters do.
More true than you know, considering that 80% to 90% of reporters are Democrat.
Dark Reflection
_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.
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.
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.
Many reporters have spent time in jail for contempt because they refused to give up informants identities. This anonymity of the source is somethign relettivly new too. It didn't become some bastion of the only way the press will work until the 60's or so. And yes, the guy from watergate spent quite a bit of time behind bars. More recently, other reporters have done the same.
As for congressmen, it actualy says they cannot be held for anything when congress is in session. the idea was so that people couln't make up violations to keep a congressman away from a vote they didn't favior. The idea that the press is able to protect and even encourage law breakers as part of some consitutional foundation is absurd. there are plenty of ways a person can reveal something without giving thier identity as well as without breaking a law. One can photocopy ducuments and accidently slip them into another envelope with press releases then drop it into a mailbox across town. One can also hit a payphone, give a wrong name then proceed to tell the information.
The problem here is that this didn't happen. Someone with an interest in tipping an organization associated with terrorism off about an impending action contacted a reporter who in turn informed the terrorist. This isn't news reporting in the least. It is a law enforcment agent working against the laws and government they were hired to protect and using the cloak of informant anonimity to enact thier plan. Now, we have people like you outraged that something might be done about this law enforcment agent or the reporters for tipping the terrorist off that they might be raided. This is worse then Bush listening to phone calls made to or from known terrorist while in the united states. On one hand we have a citizen contacting terrorist while on the other we have government agents contacting terrorist both trying to remain protected by laws or understood laws that were never enacted. It really surprises me when i see how many people stand up for shit like that. We have to protect double agents, spyes, terrorist at all cost!
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.