Go Home

thumb_mediumreporter_58376.jpg

It's good news that unpaid bloggers are included in this compromise, but since I don't know the details, I don't know if this would have kept Judy Miller out of jail:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, leading Senate Democrats and a coalition of news organizations have reached tentative agreement on legislation providing greater protections against the fining or imprisonment of reporters who refuse to identify confidential sources.

Under the deal, made public Friday, federal judges could quash subpoenas demanding testimony or information from reporters if the judges determined that the public interest in news gathering outweighed the need to uncover the source of a leak, including, in some circumstances, unauthorized disclosure of classified government information.

Protection under the so-called shield law would also be extended to unpaid bloggers engaged in gathering and disseminating news.

A version of shield legislation was approved by the House in March. But a similar bill has stalled in the Senate, and its prospects appeared to dim significantly in September when the administration, responding to apprehension expressed by intelligence agencies and prosecutors, took a harder line with regard to cases in which the government could claim national security concerns.

With the new agreement, however, the White House has now moderated that position.

[...]The leading proponents of the legislation, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, expressed confidence that the compromise would move quickly through the Senate.

“We still get most of our information from investigative journalists,” Mr. Specter said. “If you can’t protect sources, there is a lot of public corruption and private malfeasance that will go undetected and unpunished.”

Share This Post

Link To This Post


13 Comments
David Ehrenstein's picture

"Shield" laws are unnecessary. And (once again) here's why.

1st Republic 14th Star's picture

If a reporter is protecting a source who has exposed wrongdoing, and doing so to prevent retaliation against the source, I'm all for it.

But if a source LIES to a reporter and the reporter's stories are subsequently FALSE as a result, well, that source shouldn't be protected, and the reporter shouldn't be expected to keep that secret.

driftglass's picture

Inspired choice of accompanying graphic, Susie. A little reminder of a time when journalism was grimy and golden.

MikeD's picture

One of my favorite movies of all time.

mudshark's picture

That's a given.
But, if they have reported false info, then they need to be called out.
I understand that this may infringe on free speech. But, the public as a whole needs the truth.
If it's not the truth( with regards to the press), what good is it?
Now, this brings up a caveat that reflects on Fux Nooz.
Should they be run out of business?
While I want to say yes, I can't.
Because their an opinion based outlet. Regardless of the topics or their position.
But, when they spout outright lies, they should be called out on it.
And, when proven that they have lied, should be penalized financially. And after so many lies, should be run out of business.
But you gotta give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Lying to the public, when they call themselves a news org is intolerable.


What is your conceptual, continuity?

ron's picture

enough rope to hang everyone in their organization.

Liberalicious's picture

Is that they label themselves as "news". Which they are not. They've come out admitted it themselves. Therefore, if they continue to claim they are "news" then, yes they need to be slapped down, just like tabloid rags get slapped down when they lie. I believe that commercials presenting themselves as "news" have been made to display a "not news" or "commercial" caption, so why shouldn't Fox be made in HUGE letters display they are commentary and not news?

Of course if they keep lying about stuff, then shutting down is the only option.

mudshark's picture

And we've all had enough of these bozos to fill a loony bin.
But, we have to be very careful not to infringe on free speech.
If anything they should be stripped of the "News" title.
Maybe O'Lielly can get his old job back on that tabloid show.


What is your conceptual, continuity?

ron's picture

"LIVE!

Liberalicious's picture

I worked in the "biz", and we ALWAYS used to put up the caption "commentary" in rather large letters when an anchor or reporter did some kind of editorial spiel.

That practice has more or less disappeared.

I think Fox should fall under "truth in advertising". They are pushing a product, and using lies. Therefore, they are less credible than the Home Sopping Network, and should be made to show that with a HUGE label.

Nixxon-sTheOne's picture

Should still be in jail for helping enable that war.

MikeD's picture

and they is us. I think its a good thing you can't put people in jail for what they write, even if they lie. And blaming the war on Miller or even Bush is too easy. It was obvious to anyone who really bothered to evaluate the evidence that Iraq had no WMD and that the war was just a Neocon wet dream. Unfortunately, not enough people bothered to do that and of those that did not enough got out into the streets or found other ways to influence opinion to stop that war.

eereeves's picture

dear old arlan is NOT a democrat, he is a republican opportunist, please don't pass him off as a democrat!!!

Comments are closed on this entry