To: El Gato
Does anyone know if a source gives you bad information whether a reporter is still obligated to maintain the source's confidentiality?
We just lost cable....but hey, maybe CBS will postpone again.
852 posted on
09/15/2004 1:40:02 PM PDT by
Peach
(The Clinton's pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
The pundits I've heard on TV say there is no obligation to protect a source if they've given you bogus info.
853 posted on
09/15/2004 1:46:55 PM PDT by
tsmith130
("Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."" - GWB)
To: Peach
Does anyone know if a source gives you bad information whether a reporter is still obligated to maintain the source's confidentiality? Nothing in the law or the Constitution requires, or even allows, them to protect their sources in the face of crimal or civil court actions. They like to pretend the first amendment freedom of the press allows this, and some judges go along. However the first amendment protects freedom of the press that is the freedom to publish whatever you want, but I for one don't see where it protects liars and frauds from the consequences of their actions. It also provides no protection for those who would protect liars and frauds.
855 posted on
09/15/2004 1:52:09 PM PDT by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson