When I was getting my BA in journalism, one of the subjects that came up, naturally, was anonymous sources…a staple of journalism. And what we had drilled into us was: You don’t give up a source. Not for any reason. Not ever. To do so would create a chilling effect, making other sources believe that they dare not approach the media for fear of retribution.
(And as an aside, there’s a difference between anonymity in newspaper articles versus on the net. The latter is people who want to be able to state their opinions without having to attach their names to them. The former are people who, for instance, may see their bosses engaging in wrongdoing and feel they should be stopped, but don’t want to throw their lives or careers away in doing so.)
We knew going in that there was no such thing as journalist/source confidentiality. The reason is that it’s impossible to determine what qualifies as a journalist. Lawyers go to school, pass a bar, they’re lawyers. Same with doctors. But what constitutes a reporter is murky at best, and has since those days gotten even more fuzzy. Is Harry Knowles a reporter? What about me? What if someone is approached by a grand jury because he knows something about a murder and he happens to publish a local shopper, or writes for the PTA newsletter. Does HE claim privilege?
So we knew going in that there’s no mechanism of law to protect journalists should grand juries come calling. Some people claim that journalists are acting like they’re above the law. Wrong. Journalists are taught that the law affords them no protection. If you’re asked about a source, you clam up, and if it means going to jail, then you go to jail, because that’s the job you took on and that’s the way it goes.
I know this. All reporters know this. And Time Inc. sure as hëll knows it.
It was painful enough watching the media be the government’s lapdog post 9/11, but this latest development–in which Time Inc. is knuckling under to grand jury pressure over revealing sources, even though the reporters themselves were ready to do time under a contempt citation rather than give up their sourcess–trumps it all. It sends a frightening double-edged message: Sources, beware. And grand juries, go after reporters. In serving its short term needs, Time has guaranteed long term problems. Because when the Fourth Estate stood firm and united, there was little point to courts trying to pry info out of reporters. They knew it was a waste of time. Now they know there’s cracks in the foundation. So Time has ensured MORE problems for reporters, rather than less.
I know I personally will never be buying another copy of Time magazine. That’s not out of a sense of desire to boycott, but simply because I’m going to assume from now on that whatever stories Time covers, there will be sources who won’t dare go to them, so why bother getting incomplete coverage?
PAD
(PS–Ignore the signature at the bottom. I, Peter, posted this. I posted it while working on Kath’s computer and forgot to log out of her Movable type account and move into my own.)
(Should be fixed now — GH)
• 
“Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don’t see why it’s so problematic.”
Because I wasn’t talking about shield laws. I was talking about absolute privilege, as is the case with doctors, attorneys, and–now that I think about it–priests. There’s no legal mechanism in place that I know of that would allow a grand jury to override lawyer/client privilege in order to determine (for instance) if a suspected murderer is guilty. Now…there are legal ethics. For instance, my understanding (purely garnered from TV, I’ll admit) is that a lawyer cannot knowingly allow his client to perjure himself. But legal ethics have the force of law backing them up. Journalistic ethics is a code of conduct that does not trump the requirements of the law. All shield laws do is make holding up a reporter for his sources an action of last resort. But they don’t take that option off the table the way that privilege does.
PAD
Those laws won’t protect them from a federal grand jury, that’s the problem.
Er… I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection… and in my very next sentence, I mentioned a federal law in the works.
All shield laws do is make holding up a reporter for his sources an action of last resort. But they don’t take that option off the table the way that privilege does.
Still, something is better than nothing, no? And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence.
“Er… I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection…”
No, you were commenting on state shield laws, whereas I was (and am still) talking about the lack of absolute privilege.
“and in my very next sentence, I mentioned a federal law in the works”
And I will be extremely surprised if it gets signed into law…especially with this administration. I just don’t see GWB being interested in providing protections for the journalists he so despises. Of course, I could be wrong. We’ll see.
And it still won’t provide absolute privilege in any event.
“And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence.”
I’d be interested to know the specifics of that.
PAD
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that doctors can be compelled to break confidentiality if they believe that their patient poses an imminent threat to another person. Of course, the exact details may differ from state to state.
Oh, and Novak should be charged with treason. Of course he won’t, because he’s a dedicated mouthpiece of the Bushites.
“Er… I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection…”
No, you were commenting on state shield laws, whereas I was (and am still) talking about the lack of absolute privilege.
Well, I mentioned state shield laws by way of saying that legal protection (albeit not absolute) can be provided… if the federal government has the will. Though I agree with you that it will probably not happen under the current admin.
In any event, I was responding to Craig who seemed to think I was saying I thought the reporters were already protected (should’ve made that clearer).
I’d be interested to know the specifics of that.
I think it basically comes down to when they have knowledge of something where someone’s life could be at immediate risk (whether murder or suicide).
One other thing that occurs to me, is that with the new anti-terrorism laws, even attorney/client privilege is no longer absolute. For example, using their new powers, the government was able to wiretap conversations between Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the blind Egyptian cleric in prison for masterminding the first WTC bombing) and his lawyer, Lynne Stewart. Based on the information they gathered, she was subsequently convicted of passing messages to his followers, and faces up to 30 years in prison, which may well amount to a life sentence since she is 65.
>Neil – There just are very few good investigative reporters anymore.
I wish you were wrong, but … In Canada, the last few major scandals were all ‘outed’ not by the useless press, but by the office of the Auditor General. I’ve practically given up watching televised interviews as they have come to feel more like unpaid political advertisements than real “find out what’s going on” exercises.
>Bill – The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.
Maybe not, but don’t tell that to the ex Editor-In-Chief of THE OTTAWA CITIZEN (our major daily) who was fired by the owners for daring to publish an unfavourable editorial aimed at their friend the Prime Minister.
>Luke – I thought that there were some laws restricting this – this is why, for instance, the government can still black out sections of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yes, there are. But the problem then becomes, who decides? And how are we to know it is really about ‘national security’ and not just politicos covering their áššëš? Remember Sir Humphrey’s classic comment in YES, MINISTER? “Bernard, the Official Secrets’ Act isn’t there to protect secrets, it’s there to protect the officials.”
> Patrick – Yeah, Novak was just the one without the integrety to resist using the information (or with the predisposition to do the administration a favor).
And the fact that someone in the administration was going around handing out the name of that operative should have been kept quiet?
>Peter David – “And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence.” I’d be interested to know the specifics of that.
Didn’t they try to pass laws stating that doctors have to reveal the names of patients who have received gunshot wounds? And if they have certain diseases such as AIDS? Though I admit I don’t know what came of those efforts. Hopefully nought.
“Yes, it’s called “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater””
Mr. David, I hope I am not going to make you mad, but I would like to explain this quote and why it was stupid and why it was stupid when it was said. If I make you mad, I apologize in advance.
Ok, the case was Shenk V. US. During WWI, shenk had been distributing, in a peaceful manner, anti-draft pamphlets. He was hauled up on charges of fomenting insurrection under the Espionage act. OW Holmes said that:
“when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight.”
In other words, during wartime, you can only say what the government wants you to say. This was an act that in no way jepordized lives, or state secrets. This was not even encouraging insurrection, but simply urging people to SPEAK (not revolt, not desert, but speak) out against the war and the draft. This case was overturned by Brandenburg V. Ohio, and instead of the idea of “Clear and Present Danger” test, an “Immenent Lawless action” test was put in its place.
Now, for you to apply that to this situation is, I must say, correct. yes, a life was endangered. However, there is no other situation, save that where an actual life or lives is on the line, where the press should be limited. And that is what it sounded like (If I misread you, I apologize.) This is all without mentioning the point that the person who DID endanger lives is NOT on trial.
“Yes, it’s called “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater””
Mr. David, I hope I am not going to make you mad, but I would like to explain this quote and why it was stupid and why it was stupid when it was said. If I make you mad, I apologize in advance.
(hope this doesn’t double post)
Ok, the case was Shenk V. US. During WWI, shenk had been distributing, in a peaceful manner, anti-draft pamphlets. He was hauled up on charges of fomenting insurrection under the Espionage act. OW Holmes said that:
“when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight.”
In other words, during wartime, you can only say what the government wants you to say. This was an act that in no way jepordized lives, or state secrets. This was not even encouraging insurrection, but simply urging people to SPEAK (not revolt, not desert, but speak) out against the war and the draft. This case was overturned by Brandenburg V. Ohio, and instead of the idea of “Clear and Present Danger” test, an “Immenent Lawless action” test was put in its place.
Now, for you to apply that to this situation is, I must say, correct. yes, a life was endangered. However, there is no other situation, save that where an actual life or lives is on the line, where the press should be limited. And that is what it sounded like (If I misread you, I apologize.) This is all without mentioning the point that the person who DID endanger lives is NOT on trial.
I’m not the one walking past why Novak hasn’t been threatened with prosecution. You’re going on and on about how Novak should be prosecuted, grinding your wheels. Don’t blame me for not adopting the magical thinking that being vile is a federal offence.
…besides, you never hear of prosecutions going after the big fish first, and then the small fry. They go after the fringe elements first to build the really hideous indictments. Do you want them to fubar by going after Novak before they’re ready, or do you want Novak to get away like he was being tried in LA just because you can’t defer gratification?
FWIW, Time’s reasoning on giving up the info can be found here.
I haven’t trusted a word published in Time Magazine since 1996, when they published the following sentence in an article about the then-booming ska music scene:
[i]Skateboards are to ska as flannel is to grunge.[/i]
I figured that if they could get something so simple as a pop culture puff piece so eggregiously wrong, then they obviously weren’t doing a very good job on their research and reporting. And if they get something so simple wrong, why should I trust them on actual important stories?
I’ve never believed anything I’ve read there since unless it was independently verified by another media outlet.
They lost their credibility with me almost a decade ago. This is just icing on the cake.
Ðámņ, forgot that this board uses real HTML and not UBB code.
“Don’t blame me for not adopting the magical thinking that being vile is a federal offence.”
And there you go: it’s not magical. It IS a federal offense. That’s the point. Sure, Novak is a dìçk, but being a dìçk isn’t a crime. Giving up the name of an undercover agent for the CIA on the other hand, IS a crime. There’s the goddam problem, and that is the point you seem to be missing.
What I’m pìššëd øff about is that the grand jury is going after people who committed no crime. It is going after people who won’t tell the grand jury who it was that gave Robert Novak the name. Robert Novak, on the other hand, committed a crime. These people are being cited for contempt of court, whereas Robert Novak should have his ášš in the slammer for committing a federal offense. These other journalists at least have some journalistic integrity. They should be applauded, not imprisoned.
Hey…journalistic revelations aside…wouldn’t it be a hoot if the decision to out the agent as a revenge tactic were traced to Bush?
I’ll grant you, it seems as absurd a notion as a third rate burglary being tracked all the way up to the Oval Office, but…
Hunh.
PAD
It won’t be traced to Bush, but it *might* be traced to Cheney quite easily.
However, this scandal is a sign of dark times. On one side you have a corrupt and radical administration that will stop to nothing, lawful or not, in order to prevail on their political opponents. On the other side you have a corrupt and politically supine press, full of weaklings like Judith Miller (who is already trying to avoid jail time on the basis of her –perfect– health, so much for your heroic stance, Peter, that’s crap for teenagers at uni) and Ann Coulter; people who made a career out of “whispers from power”, the ones that “administration sources say…”, the ones who routinely spin government propaganda like they were at Pravda, the ones who tolerate shills like Gannon/Guckert… sick copies of the worst Woodward.
Did you really have to pick one side? Me, I’ll pick the prosecutors’ side, for once. I don’t see any good guy elsewhere.
The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/
“Hey…journalistic revelations aside…wouldn’t it be a hoot if the decision to out the agent as a revenge tactic were traced to Bush?
I’ll grant you, it seems as absurd a notion as a third rate burglary being tracked all the way up to the Oval Office, but…
Hunh.”
He’s about the only person in the administration that I can think of that would be stupid enough to do something like that. That is, if he actually knows how to work a phone…
>Bill – The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.
Maybe not, but don’t tell that to the ex Editor-In-Chief of THE OTTAWA CITIZEN (our major daily) who was fired by the owners for daring to publish an unfavourable editorial aimed at their friend the Prime Minister.
I’ll gladly tell him tatht. You see, being fired for expressing such a reasonable political view, now THAT would be evidence of a bias. The fact that the owner was obviously a supporter of a liberal politician was not evidence of liberal bias–it was the fact that he fired people who did not agree with him.
That’s a good question, actually. What makes someone a reporter?
In the other areas covered by shield laws or “privilege”, there are clear dividing lines between the “haves” and the “have nots”. To enjoy attorney/client privilege, for instance, I need to have in my employ someone who has passed his bar exam and is legally permitted to practice law. If I confess to a priest and I want him to keep our correspondence a secret, the person I’m confessing needs to have been ordained as such. These are not terribly difficult distinctions to make.
But when does one become a reporter? When they join a newspaper staff? What if they are unsalaried correspondents? Do they need to be issued a press card for such protections to take place? If yes to that last question, does that mean that uncarded bloggers are not journalists?
I don’t think one can easily draw distinctions in this instance. Which is why I’m not a fan of special protection for journalists. Governments should not be deciding who is and who isn’t part of the press.
As for Peter’s remarks about the media being the government’s lapdog post-9/11, if such sycophantic behavior existed, it sure as hëll died once the 2004 Presidential election season got underway. Let’s do a mainstream media liberal bias roll call, shall we:
—Rathergate (i.e. Bush National Guard Part 3, following unsuccessful attempts in early 2004 and 2000 to make anything stick).
—The glorification of Joe Wilson’s “Bush lied about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger” comments and subsequent overriding media silence when the Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Wilson had lied in his testimony and both the SIC and the U.K.’s Lord Butler inquiry agreed that Bush’s (and Blair’s) claims were consistent with intelligence findings.
—the brouhaha about Richard Clarke’s “smoking gun” August 6, 2001 DPB, a document that turned out to be a reiteration of what any third-rate hack journalist could have told us about Osama Bin Laden.
—General media silence on John Kerry’s call for booksellers to refuse to carry the Swift Boat Vets book. May not seem like such a biggie, but can you imagine the hysteria if Bush or Ashcroft had made that statement? They would have been raked over the coals for sure.
—USA Today hiring Ann Coulter to cover the Democratic Convention and then dropping her without running her submitted copy.
—The largely uncritical praise for Fahrenheit 9/11, not to mention stories overplaying its popularity in “enemy territory” (covered in greater detail in Byron York’s excellent new book)
—Running with the iffy “October surprise” story about the post-invasion looting of Saddam Hussein’s weaponry, but effectively ignoring a solid Washington Times story quoting ambassadors who claimed that Kerry lied about meeting with all the members of the U.N. Security Council in October 2002.
—The various chattering among TV pundits that Zell Miller’s Republican Convention speech might be “too hot for America”. I don’t recall these guys wondering if Kerry’s debate remarks about how we shouldn’t be building weapons when we want others to disarm, how we should have given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they’d use it for “peaceful purposes”, and how we should give the countries of the world an effective veto of our foreign policy via a “global test” were going to be “too soft for America”.
Beyond that, though, a lot of the bias can be found in the details. Why, as one New York Times reader wondered in a letter to the public editor, does the Times refer to Tucker Carlson as a “conservative”, but Bill Moyers as just Bill Moyers? That whole us vs. them trick of labeling conservatives slants readers towards thinking that the unlabeled liberals have no ideological axe to grind and are simply using common sense. (Which is simply not true.)
Another trick is to dateline stories on broad social issues from big cities, where the writer is more likely to encounter liberals, and thus, liberal opinion. After Cardinal Ratzinger was elevated to Pope, the Times ran an article entitled “For America’s Divided Roman Catholics, a New Difference of Opinion”. As though one could reasonably examine prevailing Catholic attitudes towards the Pope and the issues surrounding his appointment by talking to people in San Fransisco and Baltimore and giving short shrift to what people are saying in smaller towns and more rural comminities.
Then you have Reuters, who just can’t bear to call a terrorist a terrorist. Surely media objectivity doesn’t mean one take leave of their common sense?
So it should be no surprise that I support Peter in his one-man boycott of Time. Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn’t seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it. (Or for that matter, foreign newspapers, which are better written and far more interesting—left or right—than their American counterparts.) So I pose the question: Peter, what papers and magazines are you reading these days?
-Dave O’Connell
That’s a good question, actually. What makes someone a reporter?
In the other areas covered by shield laws or “privilege”, there are clear dividing lines between the “haves” and the “have nots”. To enjoy attorney/client privilege, for instance, I need to have in my employ someone who has passed his bar exam and is legally permitted to practice law. If I confess to a priest and I want him to keep our correspondence a secret, the person I’m confessing needs to have been ordained as such. These are not terribly difficult distinctions to make.
But when does one become a reporter? When they join a newspaper staff? What if they are unsalaried correspondents? Do they need to be issued a press card for such protections to take place? If yes to that last question, does that mean that uncarded bloggers are not journalists?
I don’t think one can easily draw distinctions in this instance. Which is why I’m not a fan of special protection for journalists. Governments should not be deciding who is and who isn’t part of the press.
As for Peter’s remarks about the media being the government’s lapdog post-9/11, if such sycophantic behavior existed, it sure as hëll died once the 2004 Presidential election season got underway. Let’s do a mainstream media liberal bias roll call, shall we:
—Rathergate (i.e. Bush National Guard Part 3, following unsuccessful attempts in early 2004 and 2000 to make anything stick).
—The glorification of Joe Wilson’s “Bush lied about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger” comments and subsequent overriding media silence when the Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Wilson had lied in his testimony and both the SIC and the U.K.’s Lord Butler inquiry agreed that Bush’s (and Blair’s) claims were consistent with intelligence findings.
—the brouhaha about Richard Clarke’s “smoking gun” August 6, 2001 DPB, a document that turned out to be a reiteration of what any third-rate hack journalist could have told us about Osama Bin Laden.
—General media silence on John Kerry’s call for booksellers to refuse to carry the Swift Boat Vets book. May not seem like such a biggie, but can you imagine the hysteria if Bush or Ashcroft had made that statement? They would have been raked over the coals for sure.
—USA Today hiring Ann Coulter to cover the Democratic Convention and then dropping her without running her submitted copy.
—The largely uncritical praise for Fahrenheit 9/11, not to mention stories overplaying its popularity in “enemy territory” (covered in greater detail in Byron York’s excellent new book)
—Running with the iffy “October surprise” story about the post-invasion looting of Saddam Hussein’s weaponry, but effectively ignoring a solid Washington Times story quoting ambassadors who claimed that Kerry lied about meeting with all the members of the U.N. Security Council in October 2002.
—The various chattering among TV pundits that Zell Miller’s Republican Convention speech might be “too hot for America”. I don’t recall these guys wondering if Kerry’s debate remarks about how we shouldn’t be building weapons when we want others to disarm, how we should have given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they’d use it for “peaceful purposes”, and how we should give the countries of the world an effective veto of our foreign policy via a “global test” were going to be “too soft for America”.
Beyond that, though, a lot of the bias can be found in the details. Why, as one New York Times reader wondered in a letter to the public editor, does the Times refer to Tucker Carlson as a “conservative”, but Bill Moyers as just Bill Moyers? That whole us vs. them trick of labeling conservatives slants readers towards thinking that the unlabeled liberals have no ideological axe to grind and are simply using common sense. (Which is simply not true.)
Another trick is to dateline stories on broad social issues from big cities, where the writer is more likely to encounter liberals, and thus, liberal opinion. After Cardinal Ratzinger was elevated to Pope, the Times ran an article entitled “For America’s Divided Roman Catholics, a New Difference of Opinion”. As though one could reasonably examine prevailing Catholic attitudes towards the Pope and the issues surrounding his appointment by talking to people in San Fransisco and Baltimore and giving short shrift to what people are saying in smaller towns and more rural comminities.
Then you have Reuters, who just can’t bear to call a terrorist a terrorist. Surely media objectivity doesn’t mean one take leave of their common sense?
So it should be no surprise that I support Peter in his one-man boycott of Time. Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn’t seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it. (Or for that matter, foreign newspapers, which are better written and far more interesting—left or right—than their American counterparts.) So I pose the question: Peter, what papers and magazines are you reading these days?
-Dave O’Connell
That’s a good question, actually. What makes someone a reporter?
In the other areas covered by shield laws or “privilege”, there are clear dividing lines between the “haves” and the “have nots”. To enjoy attorney/client privilege, for instance, I need to have in my employ someone who has passed his bar exam and is legally permitted to practice law. If I confess to a priest and I want him to keep our correspondence a secret, the person I’m confessing needs to have been ordained as such. These are not terribly difficult distinctions to make.
But when does one become a reporter? When they join a newspaper staff? What if they are unsalaried correspondents? Do they need to be issued a press card for such protections to take place? If yes to that last question, does that mean that uncarded bloggers are not journalists?
I don’t think one can easily draw distinctions in this instance. Which is why I’m not a fan of special protection for journalists. Governments should not be deciding who is and who isn’t part of the press.
As for Peter’s remarks about the media being the government’s lapdog post-9/11, if such sycophantic behavior existed, it sure as hëll died once the 2004 Presidential election season got underway. Let’s do a mainstream media liberal bias roll call, shall we:
—Rathergate (i.e. Bush National Guard Part 3, following unsuccessful attempts in early 2004 and 2000 to make anything stick).
—The glorification of Joe Wilson’s “Bush lied about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger” comments and subsequent overriding media silence when the Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Wilson had lied in his testimony and both the SIC and the U.K.’s Lord Butler inquiry agreed that Bush’s (and Blair’s) claims were consistent with intelligence findings.
—the brouhaha about Richard Clarke’s “smoking gun” August 6, 2001 DPB, a document that turned out to be a reiteration of what any third-rate hack journalist could have told us about Osama Bin Laden.
—General media silence on John Kerry’s call for booksellers to refuse to carry the Swift Boat Vets book. May not seem like such a biggie, but can you imagine the hysteria if Bush or Ashcroft had made that statement? They would have been raked over the coals for sure.
—USA Today hiring Ann Coulter to cover the Democratic Convention and then dropping her without running her submitted copy.
—The largely uncritical praise for Fahrenheit 9/11, not to mention stories overplaying its popularity in “enemy territory” (covered in greater detail in Byron York’s excellent new book)
—Running with the iffy “October surprise” story about the post-invasion looting of Saddam Hussein’s weaponry, but effectively ignoring a solid Washington Times story quoting ambassadors who claimed that Kerry lied about meeting with all the members of the U.N. Security Council in October 2002.
—The various chattering among TV pundits that Zell Miller’s Republican Convention speech might be “too hot for America”. I don’t recall these guys wondering if Kerry’s debate remarks about how we shouldn’t be building weapons when we want others to disarm, how we should have given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they’d use it for “peaceful purposes”, and how we should give the countries of the world an effective veto of our foreign policy via a “global test” were going to be “too soft for America”.
Beyond that, though, a lot of the bias can be found in the details. Why, as one New York Times reader wondered in a letter to the public editor, does the Times refer to Tucker Carlson as a “conservative”, but Bill Moyers as just Bill Moyers? That whole us vs. them trick of labeling conservatives slants readers towards thinking that the unlabeled liberals have no ideological axe to grind and are simply using common sense. (Which is simply not true.)
Another trick is to dateline stories on broad social issues from big cities, where the writer is more likely to encounter liberals, and thus, liberal opinion. After Cardinal Ratzinger was elevated to Pope, the Times ran an article entitled “For America’s Divided Roman Catholics, a New Difference of Opinion”. As though one could reasonably examine prevailing Catholic attitudes towards the Pope and the issues surrounding his appointment by talking to people in San Fransisco and Baltimore and giving short shrift to what people are saying in smaller towns and more rural comminities.
Then you have Reuters, who just can’t bear to call a terrorist a terrorist. Surely media objectivity doesn’t mean one take leave of their common sense?
So it should be no surprise that I support Peter in his one-man boycott of Time. Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn’t seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it. (Or for that matter, foreign newspapers, which are better written and far more interesting—left or right—than their American counterparts.) So I pose the question: Peter, what papers and magazines are you reading these days?
-Dave O’Connell
So what the heck IS a journalist? Twenty years ago, you could’ve said Woodward, Bernstein, Cronkite, or any of the others. And been right. You know what the difference is now? Most journalists, print and TV included, seem to be more worried about the images they give out than the actual truth. Somewhere along the way, all the establishments that used to be nearly sacrosanct have been reduced (in some cases by their own actions) to just SLIGHTLY above Jerry Springer. It’s a shame that where I used to see “From an anonymous source” and think “OOOOH! Inside information, with all respects to Foriegner” and now I think “Give it a week and it’ll be shot full of more holes than swiss cheese at a turkey shoot.”
So, do I think that reporters should have to give up their sources? Wholeheartedly. Under certain conditions, one of those being WITHOUT EVERY MICROPHONE IN CREATION in the way to be the first to blab it. There’s a reason that judges have chambers and sidebars….
I was talking about absolute privilege, as is the case with doctors, attorneys, and–now that I think about it–priests.
Each one of those has an expectation of privacy that is hard to apply to a journalist, a person whose very existence hinges on spreading information.
And let’s not use the “but who is a journalist?” card here, please. If reporters for the New York Times and Time aren’t journalists, there’s no standard under which anyone can be included.
And let’s not use the “but who is a journalist?” card here, please. If reporters for the New York Times and Time aren’t journalists, there’s no standard under which anyone can be included.
Glenn: Just so long as at least you and I can agree that Ann Coulter is no goddam journalist…
Reporters should NOT get federal confidentiality privileges, nor should they ever give up sources. If you protect them from contempt laws, though, there would be little accountability. They could make up anything they want and claim confidentiality.
I’ll admit to not having thought this through, yet, but reporters are a different animal than a doctor or lawyer. When I speak with a doctor or lawyer, I’m not expecting my words to go public; an informant to a reporter does. The reporter is responsible for confirming the truth and getting the word out, but ethics and practicality say he should protect that source. If it’s a big enough story, source and reporter share the risks; if there was no risk, any story will do. I wouldn’t mind a limit on the kind of time we’re talking about, but outright immunity wouldn’t be wise.
(I need not say this, but…) correct me if I’m wrong.
“Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn’t seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it.”
You have a fairly selective memory there, Dave (not to mention a somewhat patronizing tone, but nevermind that). Basically, I read Newsday and the NY Daily News, I pick up Time or Newsweek (but now only Newsweek) if the cover feature is of interest to me, and I subscribe to “The Week,” which features material from both liberal and conservative organs as well as overseas publications. For my money, “The Week” is the best investment anyone can make if they truly want a fully rounded view of the opinions shaping the world today.
PAD
In order for Ann Coulter to be considered a reporter, she’d actually have to report on something. Writing books on how she wishes all liberals would die is not reporting.
Btw, it’s apparently official: Karl Rove needs to be strung up by his balls for treason.
Might as well string up Bush too; Rove is his lackey, and there’s only so many times Bush can be allowed to play ignorant (such as he has done with Gitmo and Abu Ghraib) before he needs to take some dámņ responsibility for what’s going on.
Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press
MONDAY, JULY 4, 2005
WASHINGTON
Agent’s name leaked by Rove, magazine says
E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent’s identity show that a top White House aide, Karl Rove, was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday.
Hey, X-Ray and other conservatives. PAD’s standing up for Rove! No way.
In a society with freedom of the press, anyone with a voice can publish, and thus anyone can probably qualify as a “journalist.” In colonial days, “one sheets” that were passed out, posted or sold were common, and no one publishing them had special journalistic training.
This is especially true today with the rise of the Internet. Anyone with a computer and something to say can “publish” in a blog, so are they “journalists”? Well, since, as PAD pointed out, journalists have no bar exam, etc., anyone who writes and is published somewhere is arguably a journalist. Thus a high school dropout who is a stringer for the Fort Apache Scout (Whiteriver, Ariz.; circ. 3,000) is just as much a journalist as a senior reporter for the New York Times.
I don’t know, I read the Newsweek article (you can as well: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek) and it says The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove. it also has this interesting bit: He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury “two or three times” and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.
That being the case, I don’t see it likely that these folks would be going to jail to protect him–he’s signed away any confidentiality agreement. (I’d also be amazed to find out that they sat on this story during the election campaign, when revealing Rove as THE source could have had an effect…but maybe I’m not giving them enough credit).
“PAD’s standing up for Rove! No way.”
I’m standing up for a journalistic principle. If Rove benefits from it, then that’s the way that goes. I try not to allow my support of a principle to vary based upon whether or not I like the beneficiary.
PAD
>I’m standing up for a journalistic principle.
Yeah, I know. I’m just pointing out that in this case, the beneficiary of your stand is someone you probably don’t like much, or at the very least, strongly disagree with his political opinions.
Okay, now everyone close you eyes and imagine how Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh would be reacting if an aid to President Clinton had leaked the name of an active CIA agent to the media for purely political reasons.
HEY! Speaking of revealing your sources, It’s Bill Watterson’s birthday! YAY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson
“I know I personally will never be buying another copy of Time magazine.”
I stopped buying Time the day in 2001 when they declared “W” Man of the Year. At that point, he’d done absolutly nothing other than be innaugurated after one of the most controversial and disgraceful events in the history of American politics. (ftr, I would have felt the same way if Gore had won and he’d been MOTY). It was just them sucking up rather than awarding someone for achievment or showcasing something important happening in the world (like when the computer was MOTY).
In any event, I don’t think that standing up for the principle that journalists shouldn’t reveal their sources, means that once the cat is out of the bag, you can’t support a wrongdoer (in this case Rove) being punished.
Give the large number of controversial people as Time’s Man (nee Person) of the year, Dubbya just doesn’t measure up as all that controversial.
The year before WWII, Time selected Hitler (“There he goes again, tying in Bush to Hitler!!”) as their Man of the Year.
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/p
hotohistory/notorious.html
Technically, since the issue was published in January 1939, they selected Hilter as Man of the Year just 6 or so months before the start of WWII (Germany invading Poland.)
“HEY! Speaking of revealing your sources, It’s Bill Watterson’s birthday! YAY! “
does anyone know what he’s up to, lately?
Joe V.
According to Wikipedia:
The last strip of Calvin and Hobbes was published on December 31, 1995. Since retiring, Bill Watterson has taken up painting, often drawing landscapes of the woods with his father. He has also published several anthologies of Calvin and Hobbes strips.
Living in relative seclusion in Chagrin Falls[2], Watterson refuses to sign autographs or give interviews, emerging only occasionally into the public eye. On December 21, 1999, a short piece called “Drawn Into a Dark But Gentle World,” written by Watterson to mark the forthcoming end of the comic strip Peanuts, was published in the Los Angeles Times. [3]
Haven’t had time to read all replies but I didn’t really see anything about folks like Jayson Blair. Using sources for a story is one thing. Being a lying slug who wants to put across a personal view disguised as a news story?
http://shinbone.home.att.net/jethics.htm
And, if the sources have broken the law by giving the reporter information, then those reporters should be arrested.
If I’m understanding the latest news correctly, the prosecuter is still demanding that the reporters testify. Maybe the stuff that TIME gave up didn’t really solve the puzzle.
I’m thinking now that we may never know the source and the goal at this point is just to nail Rove or some other big name on a perjury charge. Which would be perfectly valid in my book, I won’t go the route of those Clinton supporters who claimed that perjury is ok as long as it’s about certain things but it would be nice if, after all this trouble, we at least got a resolution to the central mystery.
I dont see this as being “out to nail Rove”, it’s just alot of people in D.C. dont care for the guy, and he’s the most logical suspect given the information at hand and the Agenda that was being pushed by releasing an field operatives name. His name keeps coming up because the “muddy footprints” stop at his doorstep. Its pretty simple deduction, since he profited the most from this sorry case of Abuse of Power.
Maybe the stuff that TIME gave up didn’t really solve the puzzle.
Or maybe the prosecutor is just a dìçk who is out to prove a point by making the reporters testify.
Or maybe the prosecutor is just a dìçk who is out to prove a point by making the reporters testify.
I get the feeling he’s a dìçk AND on the Bush payroll directly, actually.
Here’s a wonderful quote today from the prosecutor:
“Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is,” Fitzgerald wrote.
That sounds pretty chilling to me.
“Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is,” Fitzgerald wrote.
“I must break you.”
–Ivan Drago
I won’t speculate as to the prosecutor’s motives, but if he is out to get Rove, for some reason, I don’t think Rove is losing any sleep over it.
The fact is, anonymous sources are sometimes the only way to get the full story out. Whether the reporter agrees to keep their source confidential or not, they still have the obligation to check the information out to see if it passes the smell test. In this case, while the information passed was true, the motives of the person who leaked it stink.
You what the weird thing about anonymous sources has been in recent months, though? Watching someone like G. Gordon Liddy blast Mark Felt for behaving unethically and having people take his opinion seriously. Liddy has nasty things to say about the man who leaked information that got him sent to prison for his crimes? Color me shocked.
As for Jayson Blair, he was a fraud and deserved the firing and disgrace that he got. That’s as much attention as he deserves at this point.