Posted on 03/09/2005 5:03:15 PM PST by Coastal
In the Valerie Plame case, two well-known reporters have been sentenced to jail for refusing to rat out a confidential source or sources who told them the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent. Lawyers for the two journalists, Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times, are asking the courts to recognize a right for reporters to decline to testify about their newsgathering activities. Failing such a ruling, media outfits including the Times insist on the need for a federal "shield law" that would create a privilege for journalists akin to privileges for lawyers, doctors, and priests.
A majority of states have such media protection ordinances on the books. But there's a big problem with journalist shield laws, which advocates have yet to answer. How do you decide who is a journalist? If you create a privilege that applies to a group, someone has to decide who belongs and who doesn't. That's not so hard in the case of lawyers and doctors, who are credentialed by professional organizations and licensed by the government. But as reporters like to remind one another, they're joined together in something more like a trade or a craft than a profession. Journalism does not require any specific training, or institutional certification, or organizational membership, or even regular employment. It's just an activity some people engage in that is protected under the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
No! Who's on first. What is a journalist.
I was a journalist for my jr. hi newspaper. Then I started shaving and went on to grownup activities.
A journalist is a news writer or editor.
And out of curiosity, what is the name of the guy on first base?
If a crime is committed in the revelation, the "journalist's" privilege is null and void.
FOX succeeded because they showed a conservative patriotic bias. People who are conservative, know they can get accurate news told from their perspective. The truth doesn't have a political label.
It is all in editorial decisions. If 3 liberals do something stupid one day, and 1 conservative pulls a boner, you can report them all, focus on the 3 libs, or the 1 conservative. You can be accurate in all the reports. It just is what floats your boat.
I am tired of the press model that says, we need "balance" in the stories. B.S. Either you got your story right or you don't. If one person says the sky is purple with pink polka dots, you don't run a story quoting both sides of the story, you call this guy an idiot based on facts.
End o rant.
Thanks for the ping. Good rant dogbyte12
BTT!!!!!!
Do not make the mistake of viewing national level journalists as being the standard bearers here. They've made the "bigs" and gain everything that comes with that territory.
You have to look to smaller markets, or the competition for local stories that sets the tone for all of this. I own and publish a monthly publication in a market with two TV stations and a daily paper. We constantly struggle to beat our competition in terms of stories. When someone beats us, it's not admiration but envy at missing the story.
This competition can get nasty, to the point where I have seen reporters chasing a distraught political candidate down a hallway. Most local TV reporters like to claim their story is "exclusive" or "you heard it hear first."
We constantly questions the ethics, accuracy, and bias of our competitors. Mistakes by one side are pointed out by the other. Maybe not in a story—although I have written stories about a journalist who got it so wrong she was sued—but when trying to get a story from a source (it's called credibility or ethos).
Again, don't make the mistake of thinking of the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaws as the face of the news. I think to most people, the news are those folks they see each night before the big boys come out—and that they see in their neighborhoods. The big guys are Hollywood, just as distant and untouchable
You question each other's ethics and objectivity when you are talking to sources but not in print. If you do it in print you risk fighting a flame war with someone with similar publicity capabilities to your own. That's the way it looks from here - without reference to your particular publication.
In editorial writing, I feel these issues can and should be discussed, as often are.
In straight reporting, I might discuss the actions, but I would not discuss the ethics of those actions. I may discuss what others say about those ethics, but I would not interject my opinions into an article. That is not the place to do so.
By the way, I have been to press association conventions and workshops, where these issues are almost always part of a break-out session or two.
Essentially talk radio fills a niche which Establishment journalism leaves vacant - which, indeed, establishment journalism pretends does not legitimately exist. And a media column is IMHO a very large part of that open niche. So much so that Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly said that if he allowed it his show would turn into a nonstop discussion of "bias in the media" and almost nothing else. Evidently his call screener systematically culls out most of the calls which have no other point than that . . .My basic critique of establishment journalism is that it is institutionally cynical about tradition, including the Constitution, and about the traditionally dominant American demographic - not to put too fine a point on it, native-born white men and their wives. Such an institutional perspective cannot but be seen as a "bias" by many members of that demographic - and fair-minded others. I insist that establishment journalism would question the "objective journalist" credentials of you or anyone else who achieved a high profile by asking press-conference questions which do not come from a perspective of cynicism about American tradition and American traditionalists.
Again, the high profile "journalists"—the Nightly Anchors, the 60 Minutes crowd and those of that ilk—that is a small percentage of journalists in this country. High-profile, however, is also relative. As editor and publisher of my own publication, I have a certain amount of "profile" in my community, and certain benefits from this. I have access to almost all the community leaders—except those currently angered or upset with me to refuse my calls. I can talk with local mayors with a single phone call, something most others cannot.
I also routine attend press conferences, and always ask questions. I never have asked a question that I feel "comes from a perspective of cynicism about American tradition and American traditionalists." I would venture to guess most journalists would say that their questions also don't come from this perspective.
But then, who is to say what those traditions are? Do we accept the stale, watered-down version usually taught in our schools? So many of these are swamped and mired in myth that few understand what really happened. For example:
Signing of the Declaration of Independence—the document was not signed on July 4, nor did everyone sign it the same time. Actually delegates signed it over a period of years. The myth most people believe is that on July 4, John Hancock and everyone else there signed the document.
The first Thanksgiving as a time for prayer—True they gave thanks..by drinking an awful lot of beer and playing a lot of games. The first thanksgiving was more of a backyard barbecue or a keger, than anything else. It also lasted several days.
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation—Lincoln technically freed no one. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the Conferate States, which had left the Union at that time. This is tantamount to George III passing laws in America after the Revolution or the War of 1812. Sure he can do it, but what legal effect did it have.
What are our traditions? Who defines them? I mean no disrespect, but usually, those traditions vary so much as to lack any real relevance. For each interpretation, one can usually find enough variations to render that tradition null and void.
This is not cynacism on my part, but sad acceptance. I wish we had more traditions, but we don't. Local variations have changed and alter these traditions to the point it becomes hard to determine what to uphold. Even among the "Native-born white men" these traditions vary as you travel across the country.
I had to take a course in folklore as part of my Masters in English. I spend a lot of time researching the customs of my own state, and found things so widely varying that determining a tradition becomes difficult.
I do try to honor local customs and traditions whenever I can. I'm not out to insult people intentionally. But as honoring traditions, I'm not sure anyone can.
Spoken (typed) like a person after my own heart. I don't have direct experience of British journalism, but I have had the impression that journalists there are moreopenly partisanhonest about their perspecitve. I created a thread shortly after 911 which I have been nurturing ever since with germane discussions triggered by subsequent threads. There are a few people who seem to like it, and I think you might be interested.Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
I also routine attend press conferences, and always ask questions. I never have asked a question that I feel "comes from a perspective of cynicism about American tradition and American traditionalists." I would venture to guess most journalists would say that their questions also don't come from this perspective.
Indeed I hope you are correct about "most journalists," looked at by number of journalists rather than by individual national profile. Looked at in that way, the problem of "bias in the media" is not simply "tendentiousness of journalists" but concentration of publicity power by a mechanism which maximizes the influence of tendentious people.But then, who is to say what those traditions are? . For example:Looked at in that way, it puts me in mind of the fact that one of the chapter headings of the 1944 Friedrick Hayek classic, The Road to Serfdom, is "Why the Worst Get on Top." He had reference to the fact that leftists promote the idea that we should have Mommy government staffed by the best and brightest, but in fact leftist governments routinely are staffed with thugs (the primary thesis of the book being that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Nazis and Communists).
I put it to you that your examples are trees, and the forrest is the fact that Americans care about such details because of our actual traditions - the big picture of America's fundamentally Christian perspective (it's foolish for the atheist to complain that since he doesn't believe in God, the founders of the American Republic couldn't have believed in God. As well propose that since he doesn't believe in Allah, the mullahs of Iran do not believe in Allah) and America's fundamentally live-and-let-live principle.What are our traditions? Who defines them? I mean no disrespect, but usually, those traditions vary so much as to lack any real relevance. For each interpretation, one can usually find enough variations to render that tradition null and void.
This is not cynicism on my part, but sad acceptance.
I detect no cynicism on your part. The stories are somewhat idealized to teach the children to underlying truths. And I consider the gleeful debunking of the "myths" to be essentially childish. If you want a fascinating read on a topic dear to the "mythic" American past, you could do far worse than Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer. I tells a far richer story of the reality of that day than the "myth" does, without cynicism.Another excellent read on the American tradition is The Theme Is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition -- by M. Stanton Evans; and then there is American Beliefs -- by John Harmon McElroy. Three books to illuminate American tradition. IMHO.
As for the concept of "Christian principles," if you put 100 randomly selected Christians in a room, you will probably get 100 different views on the principles. I've heard the Bible used both to support capital punishment and oppose capital punishment. I also remember catching a bit of the 700 Club and hearing Pat Robertson tell me that I wasn't a Christian because I am Catholic.
I know what I believe in, and as a reporter, I rarely look at any topic on which I am writing in terms of how it relates to "Christian principles," "American traditions," or any other dogma or ideology. I do my best to limit myself to who, what, where, why, when, and how. I have two copy editors who work for me, one of which is an attorney. In any piece that may possibly suggest bias or a leaning one direction or another, we rework the piece. It's my job to tell the story of my subject, not my personal story, which to me, may be the closest thing there is to a true definition for objectivity.
I know my competitors don't always do this, but I do. It may be why my circulation has increased why others have fallen. I don't know.
The bottom line is, I am a journalist for no other reason than I make my living as a journalist. That's what ultimately defines me as a journalist.
Much in the same way, Mel Gibson is an actor and director because that is how he makes his money. Randy Johnson is a baseball player because that is how he makes his money. Peyton Manning is a football player because that's how he makes his money. I act from time to time in Community Theater. I play baseball and football with my children. These actions do not make me an actor, baseball or football player, anymore than someone running a blog site is a journalist.
Most bloggers that I know of are people simply doing this for personal reasons, almost always injecting far more bias into their publications or writings than Dan Rather at his worst. Granted, that is their privilege. I do my best to remain as neutral as I possibly can because I want to write that next story, the one that's out there that I haven't seen or heard yet. I know that if I push anything in any political direction, I won't get that story the next time. I need that next story because landing it helps put food on my table, and clothes on the backs of my children.
Although some states have implemented laws claiming that journalists do not have to reveal their sources, to the best of my knowledge, no court with the authority to do so has ever ruled that protection of sources is a constitutional privilege. Protection granted by state law would make it incumbent upon the state passing the law to determine who is a journalist. However, state laws cannot tread on constitutional protections, or expand them. That's the reason reporters are frequently held in contempt of court and sent to jail for refusing to reveal sources.
Most journalists will not print this, but continue to state that the protection of sources is a constitutionally protected right. Freedom of the press is actually more narrow than most people believe. It does not protect the press from provable lies, libel, slander, or revelation of trade secrets, when those secrets are obtained illegally. The reason CBS will not admit that the National Guard documents are forgeries is because they would then be party to a federal felony.
As to that last issue, I referred to M. Stanton Evans' book The Theme Is Freedom and I reiterate my recommendation. He makes the point that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are traditionally attributed to John Locke, but they actually were rooted much deeper in earlier Christian (read, Catholic) writings. The overall effect of the book is to make me appreciate more the extent to which my own public school education had a Protestant perspective.
I know my competitors don't always do this, but I do. It may be why my circulation has increased why others have fallen. I don't know.
The bottom line is, I am a journalist for no other reason than I make my living as a journalist. That's what ultimately defines me as a journalist.
Much in the same way, Mel Gibson is an actor and director because that is how he makes his money. Randy Johnson is a baseball player because that is how he makes his money. Peyton Manning is a football player because that's how he makes his money. I act from time to time in Community Theater. I play baseball and football with my children. These actions do not make me an actor, baseball or football player, anymore than someone running a blog site is a journalist.
Most bloggers that I know of are people simply doing this for personal reasons, almost always injecting far more bias into their publications or writings than Dan Rather at his worst. Granted, that is their privilege. I do my best to remain as neutral as I possibly can because I want to write that next story, the one that's out there that I haven't seen or heard yet. I know that if I push anything in any political direction, I won't get that story the next time. I need that next story because landing it helps put food on my table, and clothes on the backs of my children.
Here is to me the crux of the issue raised by this thread. Your position is that you are a journalist in pretty much the way that my auto mechanic is an auto mechanic or my doctor is a doctor (which is a very American perspective on identity, BTW - we think that all honest work is honorable, and we are identified by it. We didn't get that from Britain with its class structure and its titles of nobility, we got it in the process of clearing the virgin timber to make farmland. In that context your daddy's family tree was less significant than that you earned caluses on your hands). To the extent that a doctor is a doctor and a mechanic is a mechanic, you are a journalist.But the Constitution doesn't say that I can be a doctor or a mechanic, and it does say that I can talk to whoever will listen and I can print to whoever will read. Why the difference? I can be a doctor if the government allows me to hang out a shingle (not that I could or would) and I can be a mechanic if the government allows me to do safety inspections - but if I decide to print something and try to sell it or give it away the Constitution says that I can do so. That is because the framers of the Constitution wanted to prevent the government from establishing political truth, political correctness.
If you want to establish yourself as a notary public you can take a course and take an oath that whatever you place your seal on reflects facts known to you that is one thing. But if you want to be a journalist with First Amendment protection from the government, that is inconsistent with status as an official truth-teller.
You did not acquire your First Amendment rights when you bought your printing press. To the contrary you bought your printing press using your First Amendment rights and money which was not necessarily all made in publishing. I emphasize that last point, because advocates of McCain-Feingold have a fettish that money made selling newspapers - or selling advertisements in newspapers - is somehow "clean" in comparison to the money I make otherwise. If my money were to buy an advertisement from you, asking the public to vote for Joe Schmoe as County Dog Catcher, my money is subject to regulation which would be completely unconstitutional if you just decided to spend your own ink and paper on promoting the same thing.
The topic of this thread is the idea that the government should decide who "is a journalist" for purposes of a shield law. That idea is of a piece with the idea that your money as a printer of journalism is cleaner than my money as a person with constitutional rights no different than your own - except that I haven't bought a printing press yet. And so long as the government gives priviledges to
journalistspeople simply for doing what the Constitution specifically says I have a right to do, I propose to insist on the yet until my dying day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.