Got an invitation to the advance screening for the Fantastic Four movie. Not TERRIBLY in advance. It’ll be next Thursday at 7 PM. But hey, at least I’ll have seen it before Shore Leave, a convention in Maryland I hope as many of you as possible will be attending.
PAD
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)
I know, I know, I’ve been getting them too. Constantly. We’re working on them. In the meantime, here’s what you do: Write your comment. Try to post it. It’ll say “Internal Server Error.” Arrow back to your comment. Reenter your name (since it seems to make it disappear). Hit post again and this time it will go through. However, it won’t appear immediately when you look at the page. But it’s there.
PAD
(UPDATE: We’re being told by our service provider that the problem has been fixed, although we’re still seeing problems here and there. If you are as well, please drop a note in this thread. –GH)
We now have one new opening on the Supreme Court, with another possible one to come, and an extreme right wing President seeking to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and consider Roe v. Wade the work of “activist judges” which should be overurned.
I’m guessing the Democrats will be steamrolled over in the vetting process, which means we’ve got one hope: That Presidents who appointed extremely conservative judges to the SC have not always gotten what they bargained for.
PAD
(Just to make it clear before we start, This Is From Glenn. I’d use the blink tag to say so, but that’s just so Mosaic 1.0.)
Having come to the conclusion that no one here is paying any attention to a certain individual’s commentary because of his abusive and abrasive style, and noting that it’s a real pain scrolling past all of his frequent posts, they’d best be shortened a bit.
So I yanked all the vowels. This makes his comments significantly shorter while making them only slightly less incomprehensible.
Does this mean it’s now forbidden to have arguments in PeterDavid.net’s comment threads? Not at all. Arguments are fine, including vigorous ones, as long as you maintain a civil tone. Does that mean you can get away with saying anything here, as long as you say it well enough? Pretty much.
If a case can be made by X-Ray that his posts should be restored, I’ll consider it. In the meantime, he can post anything except the letters a, e, i, o, and u.
Special thanks to Teresa Nielsen Hayden for the inspiration.
• 
Recent Comments