[weegee]

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.

[K-oneTexas]

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.

[the Real fifi]

HEH--What planet are they beaming this in from?

[ARCADIA]

I would rather issue hunting permits.

[bill1952]

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

.

.

[YOUGOTIT]

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.

[Ludicrous]

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)

[weegee]

public Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[FreePaul]

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.

[McGavin999]

They haven't a prayer of getting this through now, especially after the horrendous way they behaved in the last couple of months.

[righttackle44]

"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.

[SandRat]

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.

[MNJohnnie]

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.

[PeteB570]

The answer is - emphatically - Hell No!

[capt. norm]

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.

[GVnana]

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.

[Billthedrill]

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.

[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.

[G Larry]

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

[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.

[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?