A Constitutional right to news?

[reality_hammer]

I disagree with William Safire's stance that jailing journalists who refuse to obey a court order somehow violates a right, much less a public right.

Safire testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 20th and urged them to pass a law that would grant "reporters" the right to obtain knowledge about criminal activity without having to

Comments

[pogo101]

The bottom line is that Safire's approach would protect not only "good" leakers (and the reporters who received their leaks) but also "bad" leakers -- people who selectively leaked information, possibly mixing false with true, so as to change or thwart national policy -- including leakers who are corrupt and have been paid off by foreign enemies.

Perhaps some changes to the law are proper in this area, but Safire's proposals are naive lunacy.

[izuko]

While you bring up good points, the question must be asked as to whether or not such changes would have a chilling effect on the free flow of information and news, which is especially important in a system built upon the concepts of consent of the governed and derivation of power from the people. It's the immunity of the press that forces governments to be transparent. Though we don't currently meet that lofty goal, we're much closer than other cultures.

[reality_hammer]

To me tha answer is obvious. You simply tell your sources you'll keep your promise unless a judges orders you to provide information.

In addition, the ethics of journalism should teach journalists to walk away from situations where they become complicit in criminal acivity instead of pretending that they are a mythical "neutral observer".

I can't use the excuse that "it's the only way to do my job" to justify doing business with people who discriminate, for example. Journalists shouldn't use that excuse to facilitate unlawful activity.

To take the most famous example, "deep throat" could have, and should have (IMO) taken his complaints up the chain of command at his agency. Instead he leaked information using the "ends justify the means" logic.

Who gets to decide which ends justify that kind of means?

[izuko]

If you tell your sources that you'll keep your promise until a court tells you not to, your sources dry up. While this can sometimes be a good thing, I think, more often than not, it's harmful to a free society. I also see such a deal being very open to abuse. Remember, we won't be in power forever. Every bit of power given to the government needs to be viewd through a filter of "what if the other guy has this authority?"

[reality_hammer]

I don't like the idea of this kind of exception to laws forbidding the disclosure of certain information. It would be nice if there was a unique breed of human who could be an impartial observer and trusted with sensitive information.

However, as we have seen from Memogate and the other false stories propagated by the MSM I am convinced that journalism is part of the problem and not part of the solution. As an industry and profession it needs to clean itself up and subject itself to the same kind of oversight and code of ethics as the subjects of news stories.

I really don't see why a source would go to a journalist when they could anonymously provide the same information to the Department of Justice, FBI or other law enforcement/investigative agencies.

When it comes right down to it, the Times and the Post can print all the stories they like, but until someone starts indicting people (there's that bad old prosecutor) or Congress investigates there really isn't going to be a resolution

[felinoid]

The big consern for me is the legally defining of what is a Journalist