Shielding the Press...

[Larry Gude]

...in todays chapter of 'what's got Larry's blood up' we find the Washington Post offering this defense of a reporters right to not reveal sources: (Fallout from Valerie Plame story)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27662-2005Feb15.html

To wit:

Federal courts already refrain from forcing psychotherapists to disclose conversations with patients, priests from violating the silence of the confessional and attorneys from giving up client secrets. The rationale is that securing certain professional communications warrants giving up certain evidence. The function that journalists carry out in bringing important information to the public and enabling democratic debate merits a similar shield.

This is where the 'bias' chickens come home to roost. If journalists did what we all think they should do, objectively report on what they've learned and if their editors had as their sole guiding light in running stories, how and when, the gleaming beacon of truth, then we could talk BUT, as things stand we know that objective reporting and editing are not what the media does. For crying out loud, the Post endorses candidates for office.

Are you gonna knock on the door of a house with a giant 'BUSH/CHENEY" sign in the front yard to run a poll on who the residents support and to get an objective comment on the opposition?

A psychotherapist has no dog in any fight by keeping his conversations, his treatment for a client, secret. What's he gonna do? Tell the court what someone in the throes of a manic/depressive episode said?

Same for a Priest. His job is to hear confessions and offer support for his flock. He does not run out and print in the church bulletin that he has it on good authority that so and so is a spy or that Mr. White is cheating on his wife.

Same thing for a lawyer. He is defending a client and can never run a story saying that he knows, from his conversations with Al Capone, where the bodies are buried.

A reporter, by very stark contrast, is in the business of making public what he has learned and he is in the business of making a name for himself through that reporting and we know all to well that his reporting is as likely as not be driven by something besides the truth. I guess they give fair warning by calling reporting 'stories'.

I'd have more sympathy for a right to conceal sources if it was relfexively felt that we were giving and trusting this power of silence to people who belonged in a class with a shrink or a priest or a lawyer.

Alas.

Now, if a reporter were willing to, instead of giving up sources, reveal all his notes and recordings so we may compare what he learned to what he told us in his stories...

That would establish objectivity.

So, thoughts? Should the press be allowed to conceal the names of sources, in all instances, such as when a judge has ruled that the name of said source is important in a criminal case?

Why? Why not?

 

[sleuth]

Knee-jerk reaction is yes... they should be allowed.
But I'll have to spend some time to think up a good argument for it.

 

[willie]

Larry said: This is where the 'bias' chickens come home to roost. If journalists did what we all think they should do, objectively report on what they've learned and if their editors had as their sole guiding light in running stories, how and when, the gleaming beacon of truth, then we could talk BUT, as things stand we know that objective reporting and editing are not what the media does. For crying out loud, the Post endorses candidates for office.

They have only themselves to blame for not being trusted.

 

[vraiblonde]

First of all, I think this whole Valerie Plame story has been blown WAY out of proportion.

Second, I don't believe in "sources who have asked not to be identified". If you have something to say, say it on the record or shut up about it.

Third, the only reason doctors and lawyers claim "privilege" is to protect some criminal from prosecution. If someone can come up with a plausible scenario where it is in the public interest (not the patient's private interest) to withhold pertinent information, please...I'm all ears.

A "free press" doesn't depend on anonymous sources. "Free press" means that the media is free to publish stories without fear of repercussion from the government. It doesn't mean that you can print anything you like, regardless of its veracity, and not be held accountable for it. I think reporters should HAVE to reveal their sources - anonymity lacks credibility, in my opinion.

 

[Llwynog]

I'm all for not publishing the names of people who risk a violent or life threatening backlash. Example: giving information on drug smugglers who will now want to kill you.

Lawyers can keep their privilege. How can you give good legal counsel if your client won’t tell you what he needs counseling on?

Otherwise say what you mean, mean what you say, and stand behind it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Lawyers can keep their privilege. How can you give good legal counsel if your client won’t tell you what he needs counseling on?

Give me a for-instance. Change my mind.

 

[willie]

Isn't a lawyer compelled to report an actual crime even if it is his client?

 

[vraiblonde]

Isn't a lawyer compelled to report an actual crime even if it is his client?

Not necessarily. What he IS required to do is get his client off on the lightest sentence possible. Lawyers aren't paid to uphold the law - they're paid to represent a client.

So Billy Bob tells Lawyer Jim that he robbed a bank and killed three people and it's indisputable. What Lawyer Jim now does is try to prove Billy Bob insane so he can get a lighter sentence. Or he'll go for a mistrial. Or say that some extenuating circumstance caused Billy Bob to rob and murder.

 

[willie]

Suppose Billy Bob got pulled over for drunk driving but his lawyer knows that the reason his car was weaving down the road was because of the weight of those three dead bodies in the trunk?

 

[Voter2002]

Suppose Billy Bob got pulled over for drunk driving but his lawyer knows that the reason his car was weaving down the road was because of the weight of those three dead bodies in the trunk?

Then the lawyer will try to get him off by claiming the driver was impaired by a reaction to an anti-depressant he was taking at the time which induced DUI- style driving!

Don't you know - NO ONE takes the blame for what he/she did - it's always someone else's fault!

 

[Voter2002]

Then the lawyer will try to get him off by claiming the driver was impaired by a reaction to an anti-depressant he was taking at the time which induced DUI- style driving!

Don't you know - NO ONE takes the blame for what he/she did - it's always someone else's fault!

...oh yeah... the 3 bodies in the trunk are inadmissable in court - no search warrant...

 

[Larry Gude]

Now THERE is the insanity...

the 3 bodies in the trunk are inadmissable in court - no search warrant...

I mean, I'm all for cops followign the rules and precedures but it is beyond maddening that a guy could have Jimmy Hoffa in his trunk and a tape of himself cutting Hoffa's head off, Zaqarwi stlye, and, if the cop does it 'wrong' it's inadmissable.

Give the cop a reprimand. Sit him down for a month maybe even fire him if it's a repeated offense but for crying out loud.

I think all KNOW, instinctively, that the vast majority of crime is done day after day by a very few people who simply know how to not get caught because they know the rules.

I say let a cop cross the line once in awhile and bust a guy if he feels strongly enough. I don't give a rats azz if an illegal search and siezure was done if you've got a ton of coke in your basement or bodies stacked to the roof if the cop KNOWS it's there but can't get a warrant in time or crosses his T's wrong.

It is insane to completely throw that evidence out.

 

[Penn]

One of the issues I cannot understand is that when Robert Novack(sp?) first spilled this story about Valerie Plame, it was also revealed that her being a CIA agent was already well known among "Washington insiders".

An "open secret" was how it was termed, I believe. So, if most of those people already knew who she was, what's the big deal?

If her life was deemed to be put at risk by naming her, then that is one point I can appreciate, but was that it? If the "insiders" knew, then are we to assume the "bad guys" didn't know it?

I think she was news, if I recall correctly, because she had something to do with getting her husband chosen to go on a joyride to Africa to see if Saddam was attempting to get uranium in order to fabricate WMDs. Of course, he could find no evidence to suppost that theoryduh: ).

 

[Railroad]

First off, IMHO, comparing a reporter to a doctor or a lawyer is comparing apples to oranges. The professionals (note that I don't consider reporters to be professionals) operate in a wholly different world than the reporters, and the doctor-patient and lawyer-client confidentiality are IMHO warranted. I don't want my doctor telling one of his other patients about "Railroad's case of..." whatever. Similarly, I wouldn't want my lawyer talking to another of his clients about my case - or anyone else, for that matter. That's personal information that I can choose to share or not. Privacy is one of my rights as an American. It IS unfortunate that the side effect of these protections is that some criminals go unpunished. But they get off for all kinds of things - including the no-search-warrant no-probable-cause things mentioned earlier in this thread.

Secondly, reporters are by the very nature of their jobs pressured to get news and make it interesting. They, like car salespeople, will do whatever it takes to succeed. Any illusions about ethics go out the window when their bread and butter are at stake.

Third, bias is a separate issue and a very important one, though pretty much off-topic for purposes of this discussion. So I won't get on my soapbox about that one.

Lastly, also IMHO, if you want to see an example of unethical and biased reporting, read the Washington Post.