[Reno89519]

What CBS does with the materials is a separate matter but what it does as employer is sacrosanct. The reporter was an employee of CBS so as a very practical matter the all work product, notes, and intellectual property are the sole property of CBS. They were fully within their rights to seize all work product, notes, and intellectual property created by their employee. I cannot believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

Now, what they do with that work product, notes, and intellectual property is a different matter.

[whitney69]

“Now, what they do with that work product, notes, and intellectual property is a different matter.”

The article made it sound like it was an action to support the president’s son and, obviously, any references to the president which compromises him which should now place the information under NSA control. If they find anything, and I feel that is why CBS took control of the material, then they should be providing that information to the proper federal agencies otherwise they are a party to espionage. Grand jury needs to get involved and a subpoena for the information needs to be applied as it is now a preponderance of evidence in CBS possession and due to the probability of it’s use in a criminal and Constitutional crime involving the POTUS. It is theirs, but they need to turn it in like any citizen. Otherwise, they are committing spoliation of evidence.

wy69

[DiogenesLamp]

What CBS does with the materials is a separate matter but what it does as employer is sacrosanct. The reporter was an employee of CBS so as a very practical matter the all work product, notes, and intellectual property are the sole property of CBS. They were fully within their rights to seize all work product, notes, and intellectual property created by their employee. I cannot believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

Sources? They were allowed to seize sources?

I have no personal experience with being a reporter, but all my life I had been told that a reporter's sources are confidential, and this confidentiality agreement between a reporter and a source was not expected to include the employer of the reporter.

Do you think the Washington Post knew who "deep throat" was?

Whether it be a legal line or not, this action certainly crosses an industry standard line regarding the confidentiality of sources.