Posted on 10/26/2005 3:21:37 AM PDT by baystaterebel
A federal law to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources is necessary no matter what, Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press said Tuesday.
"It's nuts to see reporters going to jail for upholding professional standards," he said at the National Press Club. "We're not asking for an exception just for us. We're asking for an exception that already exists."
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
If you and your brethren in the media wish to have the protections of this "exception" I suggest you earn it back.
"Anonymous sources tell the AP that President Bush is evil."
I am thinking they want to shield rat sources planting rat stories intended to ruin conservatives in government.
Their credibility is less than zero in my book.
Exactly!
And who shields us from the media's never ending lies and misrepresentations?
If they want to uphold some "professional standard" they should be ready and willing to do the time.
They're not above the law even if they act like it.
Where?
No one. Unfortunately, they have free reign. They have all the scruples of mafia assassins.
I bet the AP has a pretty exclusive and dare I say elitist definition of a "journalist" who deserves "protection" with a shield law. If I start a web site in my basement and make a few calls and start reporting do I get shielded? No? Why not? Oh some animals are more equal than others I guess. Oink, oink, AP. Oink, Oink.
"A federal law to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources is necessary no matter what, Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press said Tuesday.
"It's nuts" (SNIP)
That's correct. Why should a reporter ever shield a person who is guilty of a crime? Why should a reporter ever shield someone who is lying?
"to see reporters going to jail for upholding professional standards,"
Is good and right when they are impeding investigation of a crime.
"he said at the National Press Club. "We're not asking for an exception just for us. We're asking for an exception that already exists."
In your own mind. Where did this "professional standard" come from? Why does it take precedence over the pursuit of justice?
(crickets)
I might agree when and if they had professional standards.
Deportation to Cuba would be better. See how much professional privilege and free speech they'd have there. Castro wouldn't take them Forget it.
The New York Times has stories that only say a reliable source told them...who is to say they have not made up a lot of the stuff? No, the MSM is full of lefties who would abuse such a law passed to protect them.
Left or right, they should always be made to reveal their source or don't print/say it. This has become a cop out for both sides to print or say whatever they feel like for whatever political purpose they have. End this practice and maybe it might bring some credibility back to the press.
The shield law wouldn't protect AP because it has no journalists. Now if congress passed a shield law protecting liars, fart peddlers and drooling dingbats, AP would be okay.
Professional standards? If Mr. Curley ever leaves AP, he has a promising new career as a stand-up comedian...
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.