Media Shield Law Remains in Doubt

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
WASHINGTON (AP) - As federal judges order more reporters to disclose their confidential sources, news organizations are pinning their hopes on congressional passage of a media shield bill the Bush administration opposes as a threat to national security.

The legislation being considered in the Senate offers only modest shelter for reporters wanting to protect the identity of confidential sources. In many cases, it would leave the fate of journalists - and their sources - to the discretion of judges who increasingly have been willing to jail or fine them.

link'
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
We have seen NY Times, Washington post and CBS "make up" stories..and I am referring only to those they have been "caught at" !

How many more times have they done the same and just not been caught ? There should be no "shield a liar" law; simply because that is all it would amount to.
Repoprters like Dan Rather and the ones who lied at NYT and Wash Post should be requirede to produce PROOF of any heinous charges they may level. There is too much use of "unidentified sources" and "unnamed sources" and frankly, I believe that often they are unidentified because there are none.
If a "source" is telling the truth, he/she should be ready and able to back up their accusations. The Constitution requires in court that we can face our accuser..why should news media be any different ?
Yes, TASS and PRAVDA used to print unsubstantiated accusations, but it shouldn't be allowed here ! Of course. libs probably have always admiured the " journalistic excellence" of Pravda...

 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Mar 26 2008, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
We have seen NY Times, Washington post and CBS "make up" stories..and I am referring only to those they have been "caught at" !

How many more times have they done the same and just not been caught ? There should be no "shield a liar" law; simply because that is all it would amount to.
Repoprters like Dan Rather and the ones who lied at NYT and Wash Post should be requirede to produce PROOF of any heinous charges they may level. There is too much use of "unidentified sources" and "unnamed sources" and frankly, I believe that often they are unidentified because there are none.
If a "source" is telling the truth, he/she should be ready and able to back up their accusations. The Constitution requires in court that we can face our accuser..why should news media be any different ?
Yes, TASS and PRAVDA used to print unsubstantiated accusations, but it shouldn't be allowed here ! Of course. libs probably have always admiured the " journalistic excellence" of Pravda...

[/b]
There is usually a very strong vetting process through which newspapers go through to make sure that there information stands up. In some cases it fails but more times than not they are on the right track. To not be able to shield their sources would basically destroy your news reporting.

Do you really want more fluff on the news so you can skip anything controversial? If not for the journalists who are you going to get your info from? The WH? They did such a bang up job on feeding us propaganda that got us into the current mess.

If you don't want the press to be free then I guess you want a state controlled newspaper. Sounds a lot like the country where Pravda is from.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Sorry Chuam;
I want a free but TRUTHFUL press..they can print what they want, but they better be ready to BACK IT UP !

Any DECENT person wouldn't want someone who is accusing a man of some heinous deed to be able to PROVE those charges !


...That is only an integral part of being a MAN..another thing libs struggle with !
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Mar 27 2008, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Sorry Chuam;
I want a free but TRUTHFUL press..they can print what they want, but they better be ready to BACK IT UP !

Any DECENT person wouldn't want someone who is accusing a man of some heinous deed to be able to PROVE those charges !


...That is only an integral part of being a MAN..another thing libs struggle with ![/b]
I agree that they need to be able to back it up hence the vetting process. Most reporters will try to verify what the source said using other sources. Most news organizations have large law depts. and a lot of the controversial stuff usually has to pass muster in front of the lawyers before being printed. Losing money due to being sued is not what news corps. want.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Vetting..schmetting..there is NO SUBSTITUTE for TRUTH ! So give us truth..not "vetting"...

Vetting didn't work very well for Dan Blather (NG), Bill Clinton (Monica), Valerie Plame (yellow cake), Al Gore (invention of the internet) or Hillary Clinton ( Sir Edmund Hillery or Bosnian snipers)...even though they brayed a lot, in the end..their "facts"didn't stand the light of day.

Sop don't try "vetting" instead of truth !
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Mar 28 2008, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Vetting..schmetting..there is NO SUBSTITUTE for TRUTH ! So give us truth..not "vetting"...

Vetting didn't work very well for Dan Blather (NG), Bill Clinton (Monica), Valerie Plame (yellow cake), Al Gore (invention of the internet) or Hillary Clinton ( Sir Edmund Hillery or Bosnian snipers)...even though they brayed a lot, in the end..their "facts"didn't stand the light of day.

Sop don't try "vetting" instead of truth ![/b]
So I'm looking at your examples and the only one on there that is actually bad reporting is the Dan rather incident. The other ones have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

BTW, your lack of comprehension is showing again. Vetting is the process of verifying the truth.

Without the shield law you won't have sources that come forward. Nixon never would have been tossed out of office if it had not been for confidential sources.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Chuam You should really put your brain in gear, before engaging your mouth ! Vetting is also, and primarily verifying the the knowledge and truthfulness of a person !

Merriam-Webster says:
" a) To subject to expert appraisal or correction b) To evaluate for possible approval or acceptance. <VET the candidate for a position.> "

Note: Merriam-webster used as an example...verifying the person

Any credible so-called journalist, should by all standards of decency, bring forth the accuser. The sixth ammendment to the US Constitution says the accused shall have the right to confront his/her accuser. When things get to the point where a president is to be
thrown out of office, or if John Q Public is accused of a rotten crime..such as rape or molestation, which can ruin a person for life; there is just as great a chance that the accusation can be either true or false.
The only way to settle this is for the accused to be able to question the accuser ! Unfortunately, this right is sometimes used to intimidate tender victims so they won't testify; but a worthy judge can arrange a better situation.

If tender victims must face the one accused..why should some hardened politician, law officer or journalist be excused from the sixth amendment ?

Chuam..I LIKE our US Constitution..but I wonder about you ! Some journalists opportunity to lie, should not trump the Constitution !
 


Top Bottom