1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Important...Please read if you're a journalist...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by jason_whitlock, Aug 28, 2006.

Page 13 of 15
  1. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Exactly. Which is why we find ourselves here 24 hours later still arguing about it.
     
    jgmacg, Aug 29, 2006
    #145
  2. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Ragu--given the nature of this story, you might have a hard time convincing the court that this has anything to do with the obligation of citizens to testify about criminal conduct. The conduct had already been revealed to a grand jury, it's not as if no one would have known but for the witness telling reporters.

    Lawyers have tried to crawl out from under Branzburg for more than 30 years...they have yet to find the key to escaping the precedent. You can bet they won't find it here either.

    (and btw, if anyone is interested, here's the full opinion: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/branzburg.html)
     
    21, Aug 29, 2006
    #146
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I am not arguing about the nobility of the profession. Freedom of the press exists to guarantee any idiot the ability to disseminate whatever he wants. You can't decide what standards for his methods you are willing to accept. It is an absolute right. We have libel and slander laws, which put limits on what you can publish. Beyond that, a free society demands that anyone can publish anything they want. You can't license something that is in the bill of rights. It is an absolute right. It's not subject to your ideas--which are not the next guy's ideas--about what makes an acceptible journalist.

    And secondly, I am not displaying a willing ignorance of the facts. The line of reasoning is this: Confidential sources brought out to the public all of the things I referenced in that earlier post... Watergate, our secret involvement in Vietnam, Enron, NSA wiretaps, etc. There are countless other things, too. Take away a reporter's ability to grant confidentiality and those things do not come to light. Whistleblowers clam up. The threat to a reporter's ability to grant confidentiality is the government compelling them to reveal sources. So yes, this goes hand in hand with the First Amendment. The idea of a free press was meant to keep the public informed. Confidential sources are something vital that has clearly benefited an informed public. That is not pie in the sky theory. I gave you concrete examples of some of the info gleaned from confidential sources that has helped inform the public. So, yes, this issue does go hand and hand with Freedom of the Press, which is a guarantee in the First Amendment, and is meant to keep the public informed.
     
    The Big Ragu, Aug 29, 2006
    #147
  4. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Well, you can't just print anything you want. Hence the libel parameter you or someone else mentioned earlier.

    The other restriction used to be you couldn't just commit F-up after F-up without harming credibility. Apparently that one isn't as looming because we've seen F-up after F-up of late.

    Regarding confidential sources: You can still have them. The idea, though, is to back up information with facts from named sources and to be prepared for a court to order the divulgence of the unnamed source(s).

    I am not necessarily opposed to a federal shield law, but I certainly am opposed to it under the current erosion of diligence and fact-checking we've seen of late. To extend a shield law with no guarantee it will be used with responsibility is a danger citizens can't, won't and shouldn't be expected to accept.
     
    DyePack, Aug 29, 2006
    #148
  5. gandhithegreat

    gandhithegreat Guest

    I agree....just blank space in all MLB coverage. And not just for the SF Chronicle...any paper that believes this is an injustice.
     
    gandhithegreat, Aug 30, 2006
    #149
  6. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    yes, you are so right. judges never should be questioned and we all should bow our heads when they walk into a room ... just like your president.
     
    Tom Petty, Aug 30, 2006
    #150
  7. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

     
    Tom Petty, Aug 30, 2006
    #151
  8. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    I'm pointing out that these guys were aware of the commission of a federal crime to get them their information.

    Way, way different that the wild-eyed tangents you have been putting out here.

    I don't think this is a free press issue.

    I think this is a helping in the commission of a crime issue.

    I hope these guys don't go to jail, but you will hear no hue and cry from here if they go.
     
    Columbo, Aug 30, 2006
    #152
  9. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    In WHAT Bizarro world?
     
    Columbo, Aug 30, 2006
    #153
  10. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    The reporters didn't approach Grand jury jurors and get spoken recollection of the proceedings, which would be legal.

    They got a hold of sealed documents.

    Big difference.

    Can't believe I have to explain it.
     
    Columbo, Aug 30, 2006
    #154
  11. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

     
    Tom Petty, Aug 30, 2006
    #155
  12. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Woodward and Bernstein, these guys most certainly as hell are not.

    They piggybacked on a process that would have become public when it was complete.

    But they wanted the glory and to be ahead of that process.

    Not at all like they broke a story that wasn't on its way into the light.
     
    Columbo, Aug 30, 2006
    #156
Page 13 of 15
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page