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

[Dilbert56]

The flaw in their argument is their assumption that the press functions as a disseminator of information. Currently, the press filters, distorts and even invents "news".

Some examples of filters: The Iraq war and the economy. Only negative news permitted.

Some examples of distortion:

• Katrina. Most of what we were told turned out to be wrong.
• At the start of the Iraq invasion, an American general said: "The enemy is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against." The NY Times dropped the "a bit", distorting the meaning and creating another public opinion firestorm over nothing.
• Most MSM outlets reported that 135,000 pieces of history were looted from the Iraq museum. That would have been the entire collection. What was stolen turned out to have been taken by museum employees - not looters.

Examples of MSM inventing news:

• A quote attributed to a soldier in the NY times saying he was surprised to be called to another tour in Iraq. He never said the words attributed to him and had, in fact, volunteered to go.
• The NY Times ran a front page story the Henry Kissinger opposed the Iraq war. Completely made up.
• An AP report on a Bush campaign rally said his supporters cheered the news that Bill Clinton was undergoing heart surgery and the President did nothing to discourage them. People who were actually there and taped the event proved neither happened. The AP rewrote the story without issuing a correction.
• The NY Times reported the 9/11 Commission had concluded there were no links between Saddam and Al Qaida. Both chairmen and the published report disagreed but the lie was already half-way around the world.
• Dan Rather's passing along fabricated documents as "proof" of something that never happened.

This institution deserves no special treatment. In fact, they deserve greater scrutiny. Their rights should be curtailed to resemble the rest of the country. Someone who is slandered in the media should not have to prove malice, for example. They should specifically be prohibited from publishing classified information. No "Pentagon Papers" defense. It's like receiving stolen goods. If a reasonable person would conclude the information is classified, it should not be published. In fact, the reporter should be obligated to report the leaker or be charged as an accessory after the fact.

[Miss Marple]

Excellent post. The only thing I can add to it is that earlier this year one of the proponents of a shield law was none other than Mike Pence, who has been touted as a presidential candidate.

I think I will call his office tomorrow. If he still supports this bill, he is clueless and should not be considered as leadership material.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

FreePaul, I agree with you: Let's have an "Honesty in Media Law" and hold these would-be media-priests accountable.

[bill1952]

You are talking about Vallandigham, I presume?

I am impressed sir, and there is no /sarcasm tag attached.

Lincoln truly nailed the best solution, although I am sure there were sleepless nights.

[Nickey]

Agree. The journalists to be covered by first amendment protection shoud be only authorized personnel during time of war. Any other publication of National Interest during wartime for a crime, not for news.

First amendment does not cover broatcast media.

[Cindy]

Ditto.

[G Larry]

HA!
There ought to be a special prison for "journalists" who work against America!

[sono]

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

William Tecumseh Sherman

[Paul C. Jesup]

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.

here 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

You have pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject.

[weegee]

BUMP. Well stated.

Then again this is the same media that ran transcripts of an illegal tape recording of a legal phone call between Newt Gingrich and his legal team, And this media now wants to poo poo the president for "evesdropping" on "domestic" phone calls?

They are waging a partisan witchhunt and nothing more. Zogbyism is my term for it but it never caught on. Rush is now calling it "the drive-by media" for the way they attack a political target and then run on to the next story without having to answer for their own behavior.

[weegee]

The Houston Comical and other papers have been caught falsifying their circulation figures. Generally that is done to raise advertising rates.

That is a crooked business practice to gouge a customer. And it happens at numerous publications. They should be required to confess their sins to their customers on the front page, above the fold (where it would be visible on the newsstand, in the newspaper box, and seen as the paper lies on the bottom of a bird cage.

[Doc91678]

I am definitely against giving the press shield laws. They haven't needed it yet and they sure as well don't need it now. It has been proven time and time again that the news media is not above the act of treason. So why should they have protection?