More equal than others?

Nov 29, 2006 02:00

Why does the New York Times continue to assert that "journalists" have special rights that no other citizens have ( Read more... )

laws, ethics, new york times, journalism

Leave a comment

Comments 9

matt160 November 29 2006, 10:42:32 UTC
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Reply

reality_hammer November 29 2006, 11:10:04 UTC
I wish that book was still required reading.

Reply


izuko November 29 2006, 12:04:07 UTC
Mainly because we don't want to create a chilling effect on the press, and dissuade informants from giving vital information on corruption and other things that the public should know.

On the other hand, we DO want to create a chilling effect on giving away war-fighting secrets and information vital to national security.

Reply

reality_hammer November 29 2006, 13:05:43 UTC
That would be my point. There is a difference between reporting corruption or criminal activity and leaking classified information (which is in itself a crime).

The Times howls when an alleged leak harms someone on the left but feels no tug of regret or hypocrisy when they do it themselves to harm a political opponent.

I would further argue that when one takes up a partisan cause one moves away from "the press" and moves closer to any other political action group.

Reply


blindman738 November 29 2006, 14:18:22 UTC
Apparently, the NYT reporters haven't a clue about their tactics obstructing justice. If they knew what charities were being investigated, I'm pretty sure they knew the investigation was still secret.

That is the biggest problem with the press nowadays. They inundate us with all of this information that we don't need at that moment. It's causing a lot of us to knee jerk and it's not good to overreact before the fact.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

reality_hammer December 1 2006, 02:13:31 UTC
I don't think the analogies hold up. Lawyers are officers of the court, and if so ordered by the court do have to reveal confidential information, as would a doctor if they were to appear in a court of law (as far as I know).

Reporters, which I would argue do not have the same claim to confidentiality as doctors and lawyers, are the only ones who attempt to claim that they are immune to orders of the court.

In addition, these journalists are often participating in criminal activity when they leak confidential information, unlike lawyers and doctors who would only do so under court order.

Freedom of the press is the right to publish information whether it reflects badly upon those in power or not. However, that does not grant license to the press to commit crimes in order to achieve that.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

reality_hammer December 1 2006, 06:07:37 UTC
Sure, and they'd also be held in contempt if they refused after being told to cough up the information, as a local lawyer has been in a missing child case.

But yeah, you should be paying so much more attention to your classes! :D

Reply


luprand November 29 2006, 18:27:21 UTC
I get the feeling that those journalists were a few tomatoes short of a marinara sauce. "Hi! We're with the local newspaper and we just wanted to know: are you planning to engage in any terrorist activities any time soon? No? Because the government is looking into investigating you for possible- hello?"

Reply

reality_hammer December 1 2006, 02:16:03 UTC
I have a feeling the calls were more of a "warning" of the evil government's intent to search and seize.

"Hey, the feds are coming to violate your first, fourth and fifth amendment rights! Start shredding and burning! Oh yeah...for my article, how does this violation of your rights make you feel?"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up