The answer is — emphatically — yes.
The answer, dipstip, is - emphatically - HELL NO.
We are sick & tired of lies and rank treason masquerading as real "news."
.
.
Posted on 03/12/2006 1:43:11 PM PST by weegee
The Bush administration has displayed a remarkable mastery at directing attention on issues through its own lens. Recently, for example, the White House tried to shift the national focus from the subject of alleged illegal wiretapping to a criminal investigation into who leaked the president's secret.
Which raises the question: Should constitutionally protected news gathering be given a renewed boost through shield laws?
The answer is — emphatically — yes.
Reporter shield laws, designed to protect the confidentiality of press sources, are necessary not only to protect individual reporters, but more importantly, to protect the news gathering process and to ensure a check on governmental power.
Texas legislators recently attempted to revive the journalistic protections embodied in the First Amendment. State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and state Rep. Aaron Pena, D-Edinburg, proposed bills within the last year to "ensure journalists and their sources are protected in their job of keeping the public informed." Unfortunately, the bills died as a result of legislators' unwillingness to cross interest groups insistent upon gaining evidence to assist criminal investigations at all costs.
In contrast to misconceptions that shield laws would create carte blanche protections for journalists, the safeguards afforded in recent proposed legislation did not extend to information relating to violent crimes or eyewitness accounts. Thus, while a Texas shield law would protect confidential sources and encourage the free flow of information, it would not do so at the expense of the justice system.
A journalist's privilege, under proposed legislation, would be analogous to the attorney-client privilege, which ceases to exist when the attorney's services are sought to enable or aid the commission of a crime or fraud.
A shield law with qualified privileges strikes a sensible balance. It would ensure the First Amendment would function as intended without encouraging recklessness in journalism or the facilitation of criminal activity.
Contrary to recent interpretations, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a qualified constitutional reporter's privilege in the seminal case of Branzburg v. Hayes. While the court held that there was no privilege that allowed reporters to refuse to appear before a grand jury or to answer questions about crimes they may have witnessed, the majority opinion also held that grand jury investigations must operate within the limits of the First Amendment and document subpoenas must be issued in good faith.
The court even acknowledged that "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated." In his concurring opinion, Justice Lewis Powell went further by advocating quashing subpoenas, whether issued in good faith or not, if they sought "information bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation."
In the three decades since Branzburg was decided, federal and state courts have increasingly found less and less protection for the press. The diminishing protection afforded to the press is less a product of our judicial system favoring disclosure of information and more a punishment of journalists who refuse to become an investigative arm of the government.
Critics of shield laws point to the current state of international affairs, namely heightened threats of terrorism and the war in Iraq, as a reason to curb the free flow of information. Those critics forget, however, the stupor in which the press found itself post-9/11 with inaccurate coverage of alleged weapons of mass destruction and the urgency to enter the war in Iraq.
Public officials should not be able to hide behind the veil of protecting vital interests to make unilateral decisions unchecked by an educated constituency.
The time has come to move the pendulum toward the robust press our founding fathers envisioned as a key protector of our rights. As stated by Ronald Reagan while governor of California, "A free press is one of this country's major strengths, and the right to protect the source of information is fundamental to a newsman in meeting his full responsibilities to the public he serves."
Especially during war, when the free flow of information is essential, the time is ripe for national and state legislators to protect the press and prevent journalists from becoming the story in the process.
Beckworth is a partner and Wynne is an associate with the Houston law firm of Watt, Beckworth Thompson & Henneman L.L.P., whose practices include representing media and individuals in First Amendment and prepublication matters, and in litigation.
There is no provision for the sanctity of sources in the Constitution. Espionage and treason are still valid charges.
The press is attempting to do a run around of the law by declaring themselves the fourth branch of government, answerable to no one.
HEH--What planet are they beaming this in from?
I would rather issue hunting permits.
The answer, dipstip, is - emphatically - HELL NO.
We are sick & tired of lies and rank treason masquerading as real "news."
.
.
Shield laws would create two classes of citizens, based on occupation. This is not the American way. We must remain a classless society.
When news reporting contains accusations of crimes, the reporters should not be allowed to hide their sources.
This violates the rights of the accused to confront the accuser. (i.e. Plame debacle)
Rejoice. The press has indeed shown itself to be without any class at all, right down there with the Hollywood society it so desires to emulate.
public Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
The Houston Chronicle is a thoroughly dishonest rag. I wouldn't trust them on anything. Rather than waste time on shield laws I'd rather see laws making it easier to sue publications for misleading or outright false stories. We could make it more attractive by letting lawyers collect their fees if they win. Let's support an "Honesty In Media" law.
They haven't a prayer of getting this through now, especially after the horrendous way they behaved in the last couple of months.
"Give journalists protection of stronger shield laws News gathering needs defending in post-9/11 era"
Nawwww. Let's just find a way to--
Never mind.
The answer is - emphatically - Hell No!
Instead of trying to fix their problems, they ignore them and hasten their own demise.
It would be like the captain of the Titanic ignoring the iceberg and ordering "all ahead full".
We had better get our entertainment out of these clowns while their show is still on.
Hell no. Not before Tom Clancey has shield law protection. He's a fiction writer, too.
To do what? Excuse me, I've looked all over my copy of the Constitution and it doesn't say anywhere that the press really is a Fourth Estate. Good God, but these guys give themselves airs!
The answer is a resounding "NO!" The irresponsibility and deliberate slanting of the news over the last thirty years has made the press a guardian of nothing but its own monstrous egos. Shall we absolve a Mary Mapes, a Dan Rather, a Jason Blair of any responsibility whatever to stick to the truth? The press already has; we should not.
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.