Ruling to Make Reporters Act Like Drug Dealers? 376
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."
Woah, cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool! Just like the movies. Leave it like this, the reporters will have fun.
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:2)
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:2)
And this becoming a common practice will make it easier to get rid of too disquiet reporters...
"The use of illegal cell phones is so... unprofessional. Now handle your licence."
"Well of course he got killed! Don't you see where he has been!."
Already true (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Already true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
The lazy-ass reporters who already do nothing but re-write press releases won't change a thing in how they do business.
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Without know who you are or anything else about you, I woul
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Woah, cool! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure i understand your point. You see, if they part of a small crime exposing a larger crime, they will still go down when the larger crime gets investigated. Why would a reporter refusing to tell stop this?
The Truth Will Come Out (Score:2)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:4, Insightful)
He said it already -- he knows the news is fiction because a fictional movie said so.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:2)
Perfectly constutitional, fellow citizen! If you disagree, I will use my freedom of speech to report you to the Department of Homeland Security.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real, reporters are NOT above the law.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
O
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Funny)
They don't have them already? Apparently these reporters didn't use AT&T.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:3, Insightful)
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 N
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Truth Will Come Out (Score:2)
A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same as any other setup where you've got a regular citizen compared to a regular citizen with financially unlimited legal backing. If you've got a problem with that, blame the legal system that is swayed by wealth.
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true. I think the main reason that the NYT reporters get more consideration is that they are percieved as a reliable news source. The traditional news outlets have established credibility. Bloggers have yet to earn that.
Many (most?) reporters for big news outlets have degrees in journalism/communications where
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
For starters, who's going to draft a Federal Shield Law? Politicians. And who's going to enforce it? Cops. And it's an election year.
What goes into the sausage grinder as "Reporters should be shielded" comes out as "Congressmen's offices are shielded from search by police." (With a rider attached to the effect that because many federal agents (US Marshals, SS, FBI to name a few) carry badges shaped like shields, such officers shall be shielded from investigation by non-shieldbearers.
(Yeah, I should really shut up and stop giving them ideas.)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Preach it! Reporters are Citizens, same as thee and me. Any other setup requires some government agency licensing reporters and "Press" organizations and anyone who doesn't think that is a bigger perversion of the idea embodied in the 1st Amendment than McCain Fiengold ain't on the same planet I'm sitting on.
No, reporters are Citizens, just like us 'little people in flyover country' and they are subject to the same laws as we are. If I tipped
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, dumbass? Ever stop to think that ALL the records includes other contacts for other stories, which may have nothing to do with this grand jury investigation?
No of course not, because as long as your catching a terrorist, it doesn't matter what happens to people's rights.
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2)
The First Amendment is silent on the issues a shield law would cover. All it guarantees is that the Goverment cannot prevent you from publishing something - though it has been interpreted more widely than that. (And myself, I prefer to rely on legislative law rather than case law.)
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? I saw 'freedom of the press shall not be abbridged.' It didn't say anything about it only covering your ability to print something. "The press" pretty clearly referes to journalists, and forcing phone records out of them seems to abridge their freedom to do their job effectively. After al
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2)
The Constitution guarentees the right to freedom of the press. That's a right The People have, not a right The Press has (except that they are also part of The People).
Re:A Shield Law is a Stupid Idea (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/us/02protest.htm l [nytimes.com]
First paragraph:
Blogger Jailed After Defying Court Orders
By JESSE McKINLEY Published: August 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 1 -- A freelance journalist and blogger was jailed on Tuesday after refusing to turn over video he took at an anticapitalist protest here last summer and after refusing to testify before a grand jury looking into accusations that crimes were committed at the protest.
Look on the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
Source article (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02ph
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com [bugmenot.com]
Re:Source article (Score:4, Informative)
The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
Prosecutors claimed the reporters' phone calls to the charities seeking comment had tipped the organizations off about the government investigation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the Times for information about the source of the reports in 2002, then threatened to subpoena phone company billing records in 2004.
The newspaper sued to block any such effort, saying prosecutors might use the records to fish for information about the Times' sources for a long list of stories.
There is of course a line in the sand with the press in which the 1st amendment reaches the yelling fire in a theatre threshold. I think the question here is this equivalent to the NY Times tipping off the Germans prior to Normandy? Or is this something they should be able to do, in this case tipping off possible sources of terrorist funding right after 9-11 no less. The government is rightly seeking to find the sources of the original leaks to the reporters rather than looking to prosecute the reporters themselves. The reporters, in my view were irresposible but because freedom of the press is a sacred cow (rightfully so in most cases) they are pretty untouchable. However, the source of the leak should rightfully be given up when it comes to a matter of national security. Once that source is discovered they should be prosecuted.
Re:Submitter's Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Submitter's Blog (Score:2)
Nevertheless, you're still participating in it.
Re:Submitter's Blog (Score:3, Interesting)
As it stands right now, I don't see any other option (apart from being less informed), and that
Curiously... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Curiously... (Score:5, Informative)
Judith Miller -- the journalist involved in both these issues -- wasn't involved in any sort of attempt to damage the Bush administration with the Plame scandal. In fact, Bush insiders intentionally leaked the story to Miller and others as part of the Iraq WMD propaganda. Judith Miller's stories had swallowed the administration's line on WMD so leaking to her was a natural choice (along with other conservative reporters like Bob Novak).
Thus, the leak issue came up not because the media was obsessed with damaging the Bush administration, but because the government's prosecutor was determined to get to the bottom of the case (for whatever reason). Since it was pro-Bush journalists who had received the Plame leak, it was pro-Bush journalists who were being asked to reveal sources.
The more recent instances of anti-leak sentiment are more traditional cases of the "liberal media" publishing information that the Bush administration wanted to keep secret. This is the exact opposite of the Plame scandal, where the information was leaked on purpose.
Re:Curiously... (Score:2)
Your clarification about Judith Miller is correct; the above is simply absurd.
Re:Curiously... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Curiously... (Score:2)
We have two cases of reporters being asked to divulge sources, one where the Bush administration wants them to, one where it didn't. The NYT was against revealing sources in both cases.
Law to shield?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Judical activism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Judical activism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Judical activism (Score:2)
Not entirely correct (though not entirely wrong, either). The records were needed so the grand jury could decide if there's sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment, after which the AG can move on to trial and determine if the repor
Sort your Country out...... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the USA in general, hell I even got married there, but right now, its not somewhere I'd like to live
Whether your Republican or Democrat, you need to start fighting this slide towards an authoritarian state asap.
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of slashdotters think that the two American political parties are all but identical, but I don't buy it. If Kerry were president, I doubt we would be in Iraq right now, (and if Gore were president, I doubt we would ever have gone in), and there wouldn't have been so much death in New Orleans.
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? The numbers can't be trusted, because Ohio used Diebold voting machines. We know how trivial those are to hack, and it would have only had to be done in a few key districts to change the election.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:2)
If you get your news on the US from Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sort your Country out...... (Score:4, Insightful)
See, you're exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my other post in this thread: the kind who keeps making excuses because he doesn't want to face the fact that we're screwing ourselves!
It doesn't fucking matter what country this guy is from; it changes nothing about our problems, right here, right now! Stop shooting the messenger, and stop rationalizing that our problems are OK because the rest of the world sucks too. Our country was never intended to be like the rest of the world; if it were, we would have just made Washington a fucking king and been done with it.
The only way to fix our problems is to fix our problems, and the only way that can happen is if everyone wakes the fuck up and realizes that they exist. Starting now. And starting with you!
Hmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
What if you're a reporter for "High Times?"
Just wondering.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
It strikes
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
Darkened parking garages? Please. How about just an office? Or a restaurant."
Yeah, because nobody would ever notice a reporter sitting down to dinner with a high ranking pentagon official. And nobody would take a second notice of a reporter coming in to CIA headquarters with an appointment scheduled with a senior manager. Nor would anyone
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
Tell me, is it right that said high ranking officials et al should need to worry about their identities being secret if what they are saying is truly somet
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
No, it isn't right, and that's exactly the danger. If there is something evil and corrupt going on, and you bring it to light, are you so naive to believe that the evil and corrupt people will not do everything in their power to cover up their deeds, assassinate your character
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
You don't understand how anonymous sources work. The reporter knows the identity of the individual. It's anonymous because the individual doesn't want his/her name in print. For example Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat actually was - He wasn't just some random crank. Reporters anonymous sources are not unknown to the reporer.
BSD
Re:Just wondering.. (Score:2)
And the constitution already covers that right adequately. Any law trying to destroy that right violates the constitution IMHO.
So, IMHO, a shield law is -1 redundant.
TLF
Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:2, Interesting)
mod parent up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:5, Interesting)
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??
Re:Why should the press have rights we don't have? (Score:3, Interesting)
The phrase "blatantly anti war" makes it sound like there's something wrong with being anti-war, which pretty much says what side you're on, but anyway --
1. One of the reporters under investigation, Judith Miller, was not only a Times employee, but also one of the major cheerleaders during the build-up to the Iraq war. I know this doesn't fit into your little Fox bubble-world,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press... [cornell.edu]
If journalists must surrender everything they do to the government, then they are not free to talk to those unwilling to talk to the government.
We have some protections, too. The rest of us cannot be compelled to testify either, if doing so would implicate ourselves. We don'
Misleading story (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Misleading story (Score:2)
Fortunately it's not a priveledge but a constitutional right. I missed the "anonymous source" exmeption in the constitution.
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Misleading story (Score:2)
Here allow me to quote the relevant section -
"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Using other laws to get around the prohibition on freedom of speech or pres
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Interesting)
No? None of those things are legal? But I thought freedom of speech and the press were absolute rights?
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading story (Score:2)
Re:Misleading story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of the Press (Score:2, Insightful)
Federal Shield law? Riiiiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why does the media (Score:2)
It sells more papers to those who like-their-meat-cut-up-for-them-into-bite-sized pieces.
Re:Why does the media (Score:2)
Re:Fuck 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:responsibility (Score:2)
Re:responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:responsibility (Score:2)