Skip to comments.
Give journalists protection of stronger shield laws
News gathering needs defending in post-9/11 era
Houston Chronicle ^
| March 10, 2006, 9:27PM
| By JOHN BECKWORTH and SARAH WYNNE
Posted on 03/12/2006 1:43:11 PM PST by weegee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
After abuses of power like the continued publication and broadcast of forged documents (with no disclosure of their source) and acts of treason in providing aid and comfort to the enemy by embedding journalists among the terrorists in Iraq (as Time Magazine has done), to their request, all I can say is HELL NO.
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.
1
posted on
03/12/2006 1:43:18 PM PST
by
weegee
To: weegee
Lets say that again ... HELL NO!!!
The Press is seeking a free pass to print what then want, when they want ... the truth and national security be damned.
2
posted on
03/12/2006 1:49:34 PM PST
by
K-oneTexas
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
To: weegee
HEH--What planet are they beaming this in from?
To: weegee
I would rather issue hunting permits.
4
posted on
03/12/2006 1:51:03 PM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: weegee
Which raises the question: Should constitutionally protected news gathering be given a renewed boost through shield laws?
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."
freedom of the press does not mean freedom from the truth.
.
5
posted on
03/12/2006 1:51:36 PM PST
by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
Shield laws would create two classes of citizens, based on occupation. This is not the American way. We must remain a classless society.
6
posted on
03/12/2006 1:52:58 PM PST
by
webboy45
To: weegee
Reporters have no more right than anyone else that commits treason. These scum are responsible for the death of American and many others. They should be on death row and not enjoying their wine and sex. Either put them in jail or do like Abe and ship them out to live with the enemy.
7
posted on
03/12/2006 1:57:01 PM PST
by
YOUGOTIT
To: webboy45
Not to mention this simply shifts the debate to defining the boundaries of the "journalism" profession.
A federal reporter shield law would be a foolish idea - the strategic leaking that would occur in Washington via the protected conduit of a shielded press would be detrimental to our nation's interests and ultimately our personal liberties.
To: weegee
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)
9
posted on
03/12/2006 2:00:09 PM PST
by
Ludicrous
To: webboy45
We must remain a classless society.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.
10
posted on
03/12/2006 2:00:33 PM PST
by
Fatuncle
(Of course I'm ignorant. I'm here to learn.)
To: Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...
public Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
11
posted on
03/12/2006 2:03:17 PM PST
by
weegee
("Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.")
To: weegee
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.
12
posted on
03/12/2006 2:04:39 PM PST
by
FreePaul
To: weegee
They haven't a prayer of getting this through now, especially after the horrendous way they behaved in the last couple of months.
13
posted on
03/12/2006 2:12:07 PM PST
by
McGavin999
(I suggest the UAE form a Joint Venture Partnership with Halliburton & Wal-Mart)
To: weegee
"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.
14
posted on
03/12/2006 2:13:32 PM PST
by
righttackle44
(The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
To: weegee
We need a National Secrets Act with teeth, very sharp enforcement teeth that doesn't exempt elected politicians, appointed apparatchiks, or any reporter, print or broadcast.
15
posted on
03/12/2006 2:15:52 PM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: weegee
Yeah and you all screamed the opposed when you were going to "Get Bush" with the Plame smear job. NO joy Junk Journalists. You don't get selective 1st Amendment Protections. You threw that away over Plame.
16
posted on
03/12/2006 2:16:05 PM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(Are you not entertained? Are you NOT entertained? Is this not what you came here for?)
To: weegee
The answer is - emphatically - Hell No!
17
posted on
03/12/2006 2:34:11 PM PST
by
PeteB570
(Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
To: weegee
As long as the "old media" continue to place themselves on a pedestal they will never catch on to why they are fading into oblivion.
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.
18
posted on
03/12/2006 2:38:17 PM PST
by
capt. norm
(Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue)
To: weegee
Should constitutionally protected news gathering be given a renewed boost through shield laws?Hell no. Not before Tom Clancey has shield law protection. He's a fiction writer, too.
19
posted on
03/12/2006 2:44:45 PM PST
by
GVnana
(Former Alias: GVgirl)
To: weegee
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. 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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson