Telander's Note, a Column, and now SF Editor Bronstein Weighs In

Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, I missed your memo on who we're allowed to argue with on this board.

 

He has to make an argument first. His "paint roller" comment shows how unoriginal he is. But then, we knew that from his political "arguments," which are the very definition of "paint roller."

 

Point of order: I've seen Wenalway too, and you throw around the word "unoriginal" far too much. Glass houses and all that.

 

Here or there?

Nevertheless, I will say it's a challenge to address the same flaws in newspapers again and again and again with a constantly fresh perspective. All week, I read the Chicago Tribune going on and on about the Times Mirror issue and staff cuts, and each day there's at least one article that doesn't end or doesn't jump.

Writing about stuff like that gets monotonous, to the point that thought was given to pulling the plug a couple of times this summer.

 

Geez, too bad. Stories are too long, or do your lips just get tired?
Shottie -- he's entitled to argue with anyone he wants. Just as I am entitled to point out that he's a tiresome little ankle-biter who can't write his name.

 

Cool. Just taken a little aback by your genuflection.

 

Yeah, I guess I should just be drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. After all, it doesn't really matter what the law says, just what the writers want.

 

I'm on your side on this one, you nasty little dolt, in that I'm very ambivalent about a) the facts in this case and, b) shield laws in general. I just think your presuming to lecture Mr. Kindred on what the Constitution says is rather like being lectured on opera by a goat.

 

Think what you want. I know the facts on this one, and he apparently doesn't or chooses to ignore them. That's what it comes down to.

 

Man, how did this turn from a discussion of a rare Serious Issue in sports journalism to a nasty little catfight about someone's academic credentials?

Hmmm. Good start, Dave. Way to get the board on your side. Attack it in your first post.

Anyway, if we can let the personal stuff die in the two-day interlude, please permit this occasional lurker (who would lurk more if there were less of the personal stuff; good job, Dave, there you go again) to argue that the attack on Dave Kindred’s position here is myopic on the substance.

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”

There is a perfectly valid constitutional argument that the First Amendment prohibits any restrictions on the lawful collection and dissemination of information. Inasmuch as the Chronicle reporters are accused of no crime in connection with their collection and dissemination of the grand jury transcripts, that act would be protected under this view. What they are being ordered to do is deliver a lawbreaker to the state, to serve as its adjunct or assistant. Jefferson would roll over.

The argument that current law, under a 1972 Supreme Court decision, says otherwise hardly disposes of this constitutional issue, certainly not to the extent of belittling someone who disagrees.

The framers saw the press as a countervailing force to the power of the state. It was assumed the two would come into conflict. The First Amendment was intended as a stone wall between the press and the power of the state to sanction it or limit it in any way. The framers had experience in this area. This is why Jefferson said he would prefer newspapers and no government to government and no newspapers. The absolute freedom of the press was at the heart of his vision of a free society.

Now we have a situation, to trivialize the issue with a bad sports metaphor, where the state has a home-court advantage. The issue at hand is a conflict between the press and the judicial system. And who resolves this conflict? Why, the judicial system.

Is the judicial system necessarily right, under the Constitution, in protecting its own processes over the principle of a free press? Not at all. It’s certainly open to argument. "No law abridging the freedom . . . of the press . . ." If the Chron guys represent the press in this case, their freedom is certainly about to be abridged.

And if journalists don’t argue for the journalists, who will? The judges are busy taking care of the prosecutors.

 

Excellent points Dave...

Always good to see another big-timer on the board...

Welcome...

 

The judges are? How? How many prosecutors are facing jail?
The fact is, Dave, as much as we might want to believe it, we don't have a shield law in this country. Neither are we likely to have one in the foreseeable future. One of the reasons for that is that The Framers s a group were absolutist about a free press neither in theory, nor in practice, Jefferson's noble rhetoric aside. (The Alien and Sedition Acts were John Adams's babies, after all.) In fact, the Supreme Court decision to which you refer absolutely does dispose the constitutional question, at least for the moment. To set up a zero-sum rhetorical game between the First and Sixth Amendments is to set up a collision that the press cannot win. You say "free press," and someone else says "fair trial." I guarantee you lose that one.
We should defend these guys because we should defend our own. We should also realize that we don't have a legal leg to stand on while we're doing it.