Larry Gude
Strung Out
...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:
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?
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?