Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Reporters 28

Journal by pudge

I do not understand why "reporters," for whatever that means, should have special legal rights.

If I have information about a crime, I may be forced to say what I know about it to the authorities. If a "reporter" does, they may -- depending on the state law (the majority of states have such "shield laws," whereas the federal government doesn't, I believe) -- be allowed to refuse to provide that information.

Why should reporters have special legal rights that I (assuming I am not a reporter in the given context) don't have? It's ridiculous. I understand if a reporter chooses not to provide information, but either I as a non-reporter should also be able to make that choice, or else they should be handed the same penalty as I would, if I were to refuse.

End Shield Laws Now!

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reporters More

Reporters

Comments Filter:
  • It's that you don't agree with the reasons for them.

    Without the guarantee of confidentiality, some sources would not have provided information to reporters, who then broke open stories, the knowledge of which benefited the public.

    Were you listening to NPR about an hour before you wrote this? I was and caught a bit of the discussion about the CIA spy case.
  • If I understand correctly, the reporter privilege is very similar to the spousal privilege; a person may not be forced to incriminate another. Why not just generalize this to include anybody?

    I'm not saying eliminate ratting-out as a condition of plea-bargaining, but perhaps refusing to provide testimony should not be an indictable offence, nor should it be evidence of conspiracy.

  • Maryland Gov. Erlich (R) banned top level government employees from talking to two heavily biased (and lying) reporters from the Baltimore Sun (also a heavily biased paper). In return, the Sun sued. At the first hearing, it was ruled, that the reporters had access to the Governor as much as any other citizen of the state, and that the first Amendment did not give them any special access whatsoever.

    Of course, the Sun is assembling its appeal, but it appears that the press is going to lose some of its perk
  • In terms of "fairness", shield laws don't smell so good. When I was reading your post, Pudge, I was nodding my head to some of it in agreement...

    However, our society and laws allow for a number of similar confidential relationships because they've been deemed to be "for the greater good": clergy confessional confidentiality, doctor-patient confidentiality, spousal confidentiality, and even the 5th amendment is a related concept solidified in the core rights guaranteed by our constitution.

    Although I ten
    • However, our society and laws allow for a number of similar confidential relationships because they've been deemed to be "for the greater good": clergy confessional confidentiality, doctor-patient confidentiality, spousal confidentiality, and even the 5th amendment is a related concept solidified in the core rights guaranteed by our constitution.

      But Shield Laws often -- always? the ones I know about, anyway -- do not protect a reporter only when they have given a promise of confidentiality, either explic
      • The laws can be updated to deal with bloggers just like how some people with solar panels can now get paid for running the meter backwards, unlike in the past. Whether bloggers get covered is up to the states and how they've defined who should get protection. Just because bloggers have complicated the scene doesn't necessarily mean the entire laws need to be thrown out.
        • Just because bloggers have complicated the scene doesn't necessarily mean the entire laws need to be thrown out.

          I never implied such a thing. I said that they help show why the laws were bad to begin with.

  • When I was something like 10 or 12 I remember seeing a TV program where people were sneaking in somewhere with a fake press pass, and even at that early age, the whole concept of "press pass" bothered me. I couldn't see how you could distinguish a journalist from a non-journalist, at least not in any way that doesn't entrench the establishment journalists and unfairly slight new journalists or people trying new means of reporting.

    I was indoctrinated with the belief that any given citizen (even a kid like

    • If the law as defined prevents Matt Drudge and a left-wing equivalent from getting a press pass, both sides are effected equally. Now if the laws only allowed reporters from papers with circulations of 100,000 readers or more to get passes, that will probably prevent reporters from minority viewpoint-papers from being able to ask questions.

      • I'm citing them as examples and saying it's hard enough to make an unequivocal standard that the government should not intervene in it.

        What standard can we come up with that is unequivocally "right"? How can we distinguish between a "journalist," and Drudge and Moore, and an "ordinary citizen" such as myself.

        The circulation idea is interesting but it makes the implicit value judgment that print distribution is more valid journalism than radio, television, or the Internet. Or something else we can come

        • What standard can we come up with that is unequivocally "right"? How can we distinguish between a "journalist," and Drudge and Moore, and an "ordinary citizen" such as myself.

          We shouldn't. Not in the law.
    • There's only one case in which I think we need some sort of delineation, and that is access, such as into a disaster scene. That's for two reasons: one because we can't let everyone in, as it would get in the way of the efforts, and two because there is a risk involved and the authorities should not be held liable. So I don't mind having a press pass for use in such cases, but they should be available to anyone who wants them.

      • I think certain government facilities and events could also need that, too. That's why the passes don't bother me like they did initially, because I can see the need for some delineation. It's just the very idea that government can presume to define who is and is not a journalist that bugs me. Shield laws are an obvious unnecessary case. I'll bet we could come up with more.

        they should be available to anyone who wants them.

        Well, that's one way to handle it. But how would you handle the fact that n

        • I can see the need for some delineation

          I see no such need.

          But how would you handle the fact that not everybody can get in? First come, first served?

          If necessary. But it wouldn't be necessary, in all but the most extreme cases -- it's self-limiting, because you need to register for the pass beforehand, and most people won't do that, and even those that do won't want access to every restricted site -- and those exceptions are cases where you already have that problem (big news story where scores of pre

          • I like this discussion. For once I seem to be leaning towards less freedom than you advocate. :) I'm totally cool and comfortable with that level of freedom, too, although I can see some rational case on the other side, which was all I was trying to say. Again, I think we're totally agreed on the basic principle, which is that it is not up to government to say who is and is not a journalist. (And I think we'll agree that that's one of the most dangerous careers of all for the government to be in charge

  • Why should reporters have special legal rights that I (assuming I am not a reporter in the given context) don't have?

    Because extending the privilege to you and everyone else provides no benefit to society in return. The idea is that a professional press is an essential institution within our society. Shield laws are an important protection of the service the press provides.

    Now, California does have a big caveat, when it comes to criminal trials: if the interests of the prosecution are greater than those
    • Because extending the privilege to you and everyone else provides no benefit to society in return. The idea is that a professional press is an essential institution within our society. Shield laws are an important protection of the service the press provides.

      You're begging the question: you assume they NEED this protection in order to provide that service.

      Since some journalists are are sort of professional observers of crime, I can see some concerns they might have A) having their time taken up by frequ

      • Shield laws are an important protection of the service the press provides.

        You're begging the question: you assume they NEED this protection in order to provide that service.

        I'm not saying without shield laws there can be *no* press but I am saying that important information will not be revealed to the public via the press if journalists cannot protect their sources.

        Since I already expressed that I didn't think A & B were serious problems, I'm not going to address you kicking them when they're down.

        • I am saying that important information will not be revealed to the public via the press if journalists cannot protect their sources.

          Can you name one example?

          I can find examples of *thousands* of stories that are published based on anonymous stories that should never have been published. But I cannot think of one example of an important story that society needed to know that never would have been published if not for legal protection of anonymous sources.

          I'm sorry you were confused by my use of the wor

          • Why are you opposed to this confidentiality right and not others? So put on a funny white collar and suddenly you're allowed to keep mum? If you can't tell who's a journalist and who is not, how can you tell who's a "man of the cloth?"

            Heh, you want to talk about others? In the case of doctors and lawyers, they are by law required to tell the authorities when a law is going to be violated. The press has no such obligation, and in fact are protected if they do not do it.

            So? The laws which force a positive

            • First, let me note that he is asking the inverse question: not about why clergy are singled about, but about why reporters, in my reasoning, are. So to grant that clergy get special exemptions is not to help his case against my argument.

              Second, I was talking about when laws are *going to be* violated, which is a distinct case in which clergy usually even have an obligation to notify the authorities, but reporters still don't. It's a strange world indeed where we grant immunity to secrecy to reporters tha
          • Can you name one example?

            I can find examples of *thousands* of stories that are published based on anonymous stories that should never have been published. But I cannot think of one example of an important story that society needed to know that never would have been published if not for legal protection of anonymous sources.

            How would I know? You're the one with the journalism degree, didn't this topic come up? Being mostly a slacker, myself, my best guesses are Watergate and The Pentagon Papers. Pretty h
            • How would I know? You're the one with the journalism degree, didn't this topic come up?

              I don't assume that I am more knowledgeable about this just because I have a degree, else I would have said early on, "your opinion is not as good as mine because I know more than you do."

              Being mostly a slacker, myself, my best guesses are Watergate and The Pentagon Papers. Pretty hoary, I know.

              Not just hoary, but actually incorrect. Both were under federal jurisdiction, where there *are* no shield laws, which on
    • Hey, I have an idea ... what other obligations do citizens have that reporters have, that get in the way of their doing their job? Let's shield them from everything we can. All hail the press!

      How about we start with taxes? When they pay taxes, they become personally invested in the government: how their taxes are used, how much money they give, etc. Let's make reporters personally tax-exempt, including all sales taxes, fees, excises, tolls, etc.

      And let's not stop there. Reporters also should not have

Slashdot Top Deals

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari

Close