Wednesday, October 26, 2005
What a crock of bullshit
Much like the lies Republicans keep repeating and lazy journalists parrot regarding Joe Wilson, The New York Times must think if they keep repeating their deceptive line of defense for why Miss-Run-Amok, Judith Miller. was forced to testify, no one will be the wiser. Or at least not too many folks.
Their latest dissembling story thread begins innocently enough, with background on previous government investigations into leaks by reporters and how they mostly ended in dead-ends. The story meanders along when wham, the reader is smacked right between the eyes with out-and-out deceit.
Douglas Jehl, when concluding his story, writes these cagey words: "In ruling in favor of Mr. Fitzgerald this year, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered Ms. Miller to testify." He then cites a Supreme Court decision, which according to him, has "been interpreted by lower courts as meaning that reporters have almost no protection from grand jury subpoenas seeking their sources."
Well, in the first place, lower courts also ordered Matthew Cooper to testify. Miller was not singled out. And secondly, the "almost no protection" he talks about fails to inform the reader exactly the conditions under which a journalist must testify.
For the uninformed, in Branzburg v. Hayes and ensuing lower court rulings, the public's right to know did not outweigh a government's right to enforce its laws. The decision is rooted in the greater good for the greatest societal good.
The Courts held journalists have an “obligation [like] all citizens [to] respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation.” But before a reporter is forced to reveal his or her source(s), the government must show proof they have tried every other means to obtain the information and without it, the wrongdoer would go unpunished.
Something the Times conveniently left out.
Moreover, a tenet in the Code of Ethics by the Society of Professional Journalists is that journalists must “recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about them than public figures. This was certainly the case with Valerie Plame before she was outed.
In other words, Plame and the government have rights as well.
Much like the lies Republicans keep repeating and lazy journalists parrot regarding Joe Wilson, The New York Times must think if they keep repeating their deceptive line of defense for why Miss-Run-Amok, Judith Miller. was forced to testify, no one will be the wiser. Or at least not too many folks.
Their latest dissembling story thread begins innocently enough, with background on previous government investigations into leaks by reporters and how they mostly ended in dead-ends. The story meanders along when wham, the reader is smacked right between the eyes with out-and-out deceit.
Douglas Jehl, when concluding his story, writes these cagey words: "In ruling in favor of Mr. Fitzgerald this year, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered Ms. Miller to testify." He then cites a Supreme Court decision, which according to him, has "been interpreted by lower courts as meaning that reporters have almost no protection from grand jury subpoenas seeking their sources."
Well, in the first place, lower courts also ordered Matthew Cooper to testify. Miller was not singled out. And secondly, the "almost no protection" he talks about fails to inform the reader exactly the conditions under which a journalist must testify.
For the uninformed, in Branzburg v. Hayes and ensuing lower court rulings, the public's right to know did not outweigh a government's right to enforce its laws. The decision is rooted in the greater good for the greatest societal good.
The Courts held journalists have an “obligation [like] all citizens [to] respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation.” But before a reporter is forced to reveal his or her source(s), the government must show proof they have tried every other means to obtain the information and without it, the wrongdoer would go unpunished.
Something the Times conveniently left out.
Moreover, a tenet in the Code of Ethics by the Society of Professional Journalists is that journalists must “recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about them than public figures. This was certainly the case with Valerie Plame before she was outed.
In other words, Plame and the government have rights as well.
// posted by Howling Latina @ 4:15 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Very well stated observation although I think the law is convoluted enough that even lower courts have a problem with what sources need to be revealed in relation to the crime in question. The Supreme Court has always had a problem with this except in cases where "National Security" issues might be jeopordized.
Post a Comment
<< Home
