Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers Cut Wikileaks Out of Shield Law
An anonymous reader writes "The US press has been pushing for a (much needed) federal shield law, that would allow reporters to protect their sources. It's been something of a political struggle for a few years now, and things were getting close when Wikileaks suddenly got a bunch of attention for leaking all those Afghan war documents. Suddenly, the politicians involved started working on an amendment that would specifically carve out an exception for Wikileaks so that it would not be covered by such a shield law. And, now, The First Amendment Center is condemning the newspaper industry for throwing Wikileaks under the bus, as many in the industry are supporting this new amendment, and saying that Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'"
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.
Did the news industry forget what journalism is?
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
What does American law have to do with Wikileaks?
No sig today...
...do journalists need special bonus rights over and above the standard package?
What is the problem to which this is the solution?
If these protections - like being able to film cops at demonstrations - apply only to "accredited journalists" (or whatever you want to call them) then how long will it be before onerous demands are required to gain accreditation?
I understand in some ways why they want to a closed shop and shut out bloggers and other herberts who they perceive as amateurs. But, so the proverb says, be careful what you ask for - you might just get it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Regardless of whether or not you support wikileaks, the method for taking one's rights is to first make a single exception that has some significant support, then follow it by expanding the law to include more and more exceptions, until finally some politician can say, "Well, how do we nail an *exception* masquerading as part of the general public?" and BAM, you have a new, inclusive restriction on your rights. The stable state of laws is always one of all or nothing. The moment you slip into in between, the law will move towards whichever end the government prefers. I don't get how the journalism doesn't understand that by making one exception, they lay the groundwork for more exceptions to be made, until eventually there is no source protection.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Our "friends" at the newspapers like it when they're allowed to keep information from the public and then publish it for the sensationalism. To have someone else horn in on their territory is not to be accepted. In the last 20 years I've seen the "news" business go from fact driven reports to "newstainment". I'd rather read the information that Wikileaks puts on their website and make my own decisions based on the FACTS. Wikileaks is more of a journalist trying to put out the information they get so that we aren't keep in the dark by politicians, TV news monkeys, and the "We'll do whatever our government tells us to do" newspapers.
Apologies for the rant; I just get a little P.O.ed when the big guys are trying to squish the little guys who are willing to show us what's really going on.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
On what planet? Here on earth journalism has always been about what will sell papers or garner eyeballs.
I mean seriously, the drek quoted above gets posted and moderated 'insightful' every time a story about the media posted - but it is not now and never has been true.
Woodward and Bernstein are declared "not journalists", "Deep Throat" is unmasked and secretly prosecuted, the Watergate Hotel remains just another uninteresting building in the District of Columbia, and Richard M. Nixon, after successfully driving to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, goes on to third and fourth presidential terms.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Now it seems that to most of the industry, it's about finding out what trouble Lindsay Lohan will get into next.
Well, technically that is actually journalism. Just not very useful journalism. I think you're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses. There has always been yellow journalism, gossip rags, propaganda sheets, etc. It's not like all journalism in the past was a noble effort to advance the public interest.
... and then they built the supercollider.
People do not study their history well, they learn maybe about major events, not about how people actually lived, and so they repeat bullshit over and over. As such a lot of people tend to be Neverwases. They look back to the good old days, where crime was low, people respected their elders, the press was honest and life was grand. You know, a past that never was.
Yellow journalism has been the norm for a long time. There are publications that are better, and periods where things over all improve because of some inspiring people, but yellow journalism is the norm.
But people don't study their history so things are always "getting worse." The press is "worse" now than ever (even though there is more independent journalism), crime is "worse" (though is has been trending down for like 4 decades), kids are lazy, people are stupid, music is bad, etc, etc, etc. All shit that more or less every generation has said and it has always been bullshit.
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'"
Considering what "journalism" has become, this is actually a compliment.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You can't give everyone an exemption
It would be almost like you had to give everyone a set of clearly enumerated rights, and that would take some kind of bill.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Then we can certainly do without whatever *is* called "journalism".
you had me at #!