Balco leak uncovered

I know, Ragu, but it's fun to watch someone tie himself in knots. In India, you'd pay a whole bunch of rupees for this act. The latest bowline seems to be the inability to differentiate between two different offenses, violations of two different statutes, under two different points of law -- as well as an unhealthy obsession with shield laws which, in any case, would cover only the second of the two distinct violations, which some people can't seem to distinguish, one from the other.

 

"Contempt of court" has its own realm in our legal system -- but it's not "breaking the law" unless it's "criminal contempt."

The reporters have been held in civil contempt, not criminal contempt.

It's also highly incorrect to say the reporters have been "convicted" of anything.

I'll also throw in my same thing I've been saying for months...

It's not illegal for a witness in a GJ proceding to discuss or disclose his testimony.

 

If it's not an offense, then I guess we don't need stronger shield laws, do we?

Nothing like an argument of convenience rather than an argument of conviction. Of course, we knew that already since a lot of people conveniently dropped the shield law argument when the Judy Miller fiasco was exposed.

Guess we'll need to archive the details for the people with the selective memories.

Shield law -- We, uh, really need it! Except when we don't. Or when the situation doesn't suit us. Who's Judy Miller?

 

This is what happens when you cut up your arguments and throw them in front of an electric fan.

 

Lots of humor in there. Let's see: We don't NEED shield laws, but we do need them. There's freedom to not disclose sources, even though there isn't, and oh yeah, we need shield laws for that freedom. Because it's guaranteed in the Constitution, even though it isn't. And whistleblowers are afraid of having their names disclosed, but not if it's through unsealing sealed testimony. Because after all, we need a shield law to protect the disclosure of unsealed sealed testimony.

Go back to accusing athletes of using enhancers, Ragump.

 

I think it might be time to go back and revisit the ramblings of the Kool-Aid drinkers during the last push for a shield law when she-who-will-not-be-named was in this situation. That should be good for some laughs.

To the archives ...

 

"Yes, if only you'd been allowed to go back to Iraq, pin a few more medals on and churn just a bit more bullshit, everything would've been made clear. How dare your editors reign you in after all your shoddy reporting. After all, you once made a comment at Barnard to the effect that you might be a complete credulous dupe. I guess you were proved fucking right on at least one point.
The right of reply and the obligation to correct inaccuracies are also the mark of a free and responsible press.
Yeah. And we're still waiting.
I salute The Times'’s editorial page for advocating a federal shield law before, during and after my jailing and for supporting as recently two weeks ago my willingness to go to jail to uphold a vital principle.
...which would not have applied to you.
I will continue speaking in support of a Federal shield law.
...which would not have applied to you.
I intend to call attention to the internal and external threats to our country'’s freedoms -- Al Qaeda and other forms of religious extremism, conventional and W.M.D. terrorism, and growing government secrecy in the name of national security -- subjects that have long defined my work.
Why don't you start with telling everybody what the hell went on? Maybe take a crash course in the Roseanne Barr School of Repressed Memory Recovery and figure out who else was indicated in your notes? How you "forgot" about the June 23 meeting with Scooter Libby and had to have a bit of assistance (under threat of indictment) and suddenly remembered in a flash of inspiration?

There are many, many services you could render to the country and to posterity just by coming clean, Judy. Employment opportunities look scarce as Wingnuttia gets ready to use far worse words than "entanglement" as they assault your credibility to save Scooter and the administration. Those powerful men you love so much are poised to tear you to shreds. I think you need some new friends."

Let's see what else there is.

 

From pbs.org:

The role of publishers and editors
JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you this -- on the issue -- you raised the shield issue. Specifically as it applies to this case, there's been a lot of criticism of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher, and Bill Keller, the executive editor, for not pressing Judy Miller for any details. They just took her at her word and put the Times' prestige on the line with her without knowing who the sources were or what the details were, without looking at anything. Is that what you think publishers and editors should do?

LUCY DALGLISH: You know -- I think that is -- the reporters and columnists at the New York Times have probably a lot more autonomy than any other reporters and editors of any other publication.

I think in most newsrooms editors will insist on knowing who the source is and the gist of what it is you're trying to protect. I think that's unusual, but then again I think once you reach the level of reporting for the New York Times I think you do become accustomed to more autonomy.

My guess is that in the future that type of behavior will change and that everybody at the Times will be subject to more thorough reporting to their editors.

JIM LEHRER: Alex Jones, what's your view of that?

ALEX JONES: Jim, I worked at the New York Times for nine years. I love the institution. I think it's absolutely essential to our democracy. And I absolutely don't agree with that. I feel like any reporter owes it to their editor to level with them, especially when the credibility of the newspaper itself is at stake. And the idea that you would have a news organization that could not pull in a reporter and say not only who the source was but what are the circumstances of your relationship; what are the terms; what is your relationship with the administration -- especially now that these questions are being raised -- how can you operate a news organization?

 

"ALEX JONES: Jim, I have to tell you, I think this is an extremely important moment for the New York Times. I think it's a moral crossroads. I think that the New York Times, if I were the editors of the New York Times, I would appoint an internal group that I had complete confidence in to review Judy Miller's reporting, her journalism.

And I would expect her and ask her and insist upon her cooperating and engaging that. And if she refused to engage it, if she refused to be frank, then that would essentially be a firing offense as far as I'm concerned. I think Judy Miller needs this just as much as the New York Times does. I mean, her credibility is at stake. And I think that she needs either a clean bill or she needs not to be representing the New York Times anymore.

I think that now she has taken on the sort of symbolic credibility that is going to be something that's visited on all the editors and reporters and on the institution itself. And this may not really matter to the public at large. But within the world of journalism for the New York Times to lose its stature as the moral leader, as the standard bearer, that would be tragic."

Funny how very little of that happened.

But we need a shield law.

 

From Kevin Featherly:

But I am troubled that, apparently in its zeal to secure passage of a national press shield law, SPJ eagerly drank up the Kool-Aid Judy Miller brewed when she left jail last month and proclaimed herself a martyr to the cause of freedom for journalists everywhere.