This guy's an idiot... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KenHigg
- Start date
Bodisathva
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 14:27
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,274
We could modify that to "Journalists have the absolute responsiblity to report the truth, without spin or sensationalism"...
but who'd read their stories?
but who'd read their stories?
Len Boorman
Back in gainfull employme
- Local time
- Today, 19:27
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 1,930
There are a few people who believe themselves above the law.
There is only one solution to these people
Put them in Jail
L
There is only one solution to these people
Put them in Jail
L
Len Boorman
Back in gainfull employme
- Local time
- Today, 19:27
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 1,930
We could modify that to "Journalists have the absolute responsiblity to report the truth, without spin or sensationalism"...
but who'd read their stories?
Never going to work.
Newspaper articles would seldom be more than a single paragraph and anyway Can journalists tell the difference between fact and fiction
L
As a member of society - you should report these lawbreakers to the police - otherwise the police cannot enforce the the law
police = people who enforce policy the policy is decided by the people etc
if you do not support the police or withhold information then society will collaspe
now there are exceptions corruption within the police would be hard to deal with if you had to report it tot he polcie themselves - so it is not black and white
but fromth e link - if he had a video shoot of these events then this should of been given over uneditted
if it was a interview with a person about a subject then yes some editing is reasonable
police = people who enforce policy the policy is decided by the people etc
if you do not support the police or withhold information then society will collaspe
now there are exceptions corruption within the police would be hard to deal with if you had to report it tot he polcie themselves - so it is not black and white
but fromth e link - if he had a video shoot of these events then this should of been given over uneditted
if it was a interview with a person about a subject then yes some editing is reasonable
Bodisathva
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 14:27
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,274
apparently it's not just the journalists (who actually train on how to spin and sensationalize), now it's the damn bloggers that think they're journalists.
but to answer your question, I'd say, no...definitely not
R
Rich
Guest
Send him to Gitmo and see what he can uncover there
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 19:27
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,118
- Local time
- Today, 13:27
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,241
There is a fine line here. Having read the article in the link, I think this guy Wolf was on the wrong side of the argument - but for technical reasons, not based on the underlying legal principle.
From the description of the tape, no one gave him an interview and the tape was posted publicly. Unless he edited out an interview in which someone identified himself as a perpetrator of an actual crime, Wolf's action would not have fallen under the usual "confidentiality of source" immunity. But even if he taped an interview in which someone confessed to 50 crimes, it is useless in court because the statement wasn't made under oath. If Wolf didn't himself witness or videotape the commission of a crime, then he is right in that the government was overstepping its bounds. The principle he stated is correct.
His status as a member of the press might be in question but the idea of freedom of the press absolutely depends on his ability to refuse to name his sources. If he gets an interview with someone and that interview contains information that would support the arrest of the interviewed, there is an issue to consider. If the journalist is seen as an extension of a law enforcement organization, he's not a journalist any more. He's a government snitch. (In the eyes of the person who just got arrested.) Why should anyone ever give him another interview if they know they will get arrested for it?
The USA has gone through cycles in which censorship of newspapers and coercion of source information have led to distrust of newspapers. As much as I believe that many news rags have become nothing more than sensationalist emotion-mongers preying on folks' baser emotions, there is still that concept of purity that must drive a wedge between government and journalists. Otherwise, you cannot believe in the integrity of what you read in the newspapers. (I mean, not just limited disbelief, but total disbelief.)
There is also the issue of a matter of degree vs. kind. If his videotape could lead to the arrest and conviction of an active serial killer or rapist or child molester, many states would allow coercing him to fork over the raw data. But in this case, that doesn't seem to apply. So let's just say that there is more than one issue involved here in the basic question of should he or should he not have turned over the tape.
From the description of the tape, no one gave him an interview and the tape was posted publicly. Unless he edited out an interview in which someone identified himself as a perpetrator of an actual crime, Wolf's action would not have fallen under the usual "confidentiality of source" immunity. But even if he taped an interview in which someone confessed to 50 crimes, it is useless in court because the statement wasn't made under oath. If Wolf didn't himself witness or videotape the commission of a crime, then he is right in that the government was overstepping its bounds. The principle he stated is correct.
His status as a member of the press might be in question but the idea of freedom of the press absolutely depends on his ability to refuse to name his sources. If he gets an interview with someone and that interview contains information that would support the arrest of the interviewed, there is an issue to consider. If the journalist is seen as an extension of a law enforcement organization, he's not a journalist any more. He's a government snitch. (In the eyes of the person who just got arrested.) Why should anyone ever give him another interview if they know they will get arrested for it?
The USA has gone through cycles in which censorship of newspapers and coercion of source information have led to distrust of newspapers. As much as I believe that many news rags have become nothing more than sensationalist emotion-mongers preying on folks' baser emotions, there is still that concept of purity that must drive a wedge between government and journalists. Otherwise, you cannot believe in the integrity of what you read in the newspapers. (I mean, not just limited disbelief, but total disbelief.)
There is also the issue of a matter of degree vs. kind. If his videotape could lead to the arrest and conviction of an active serial killer or rapist or child molester, many states would allow coercing him to fork over the raw data. But in this case, that doesn't seem to apply. So let's just say that there is more than one issue involved here in the basic question of should he or should he not have turned over the tape.
- Local time
- Today, 13:27
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,241
Ken, this is one of the issues I mentioned. His claim to legitimate journalism is, indeed, weak.
I just wanted to point out that there IS another side to this coin. Some of our UK friends don't always understand that point unless we educate them.
I just wanted to point out that there IS another side to this coin. Some of our UK friends don't always understand that point unless we educate them.
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 14:27
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
Do you think a 'legitimate journalist' should be exempt from disclosure laws? Speaking of which, I not sure what the laws are on that? If I as a non journalist knew of someone doing something wrong, would I be in contempt in a court of law if I didn't reveal their identity?
R
Rich
Guest
I don't think 'idiot' is the right word.
Call me cynical if you like, but how many people had heard of him prior to all this happening? How many know his name now?
Did his journalistic reputation for not revealing sources go up or down, as a result of all this? Will this, in turn, not likely lead to people who have committed - shall we say - 'questionable' acts agreeing to be interviewed by him, when they won't speak to other journalists?
Lastly, if you're going to make this kind of a career-enhancing stand, why not make it over a tape showing nothing of any use, as opposed to a tape of a child murder? Perhaps because people don't take things like the latter lightly and, while you want to make money, you don't necessarily want to get killed over it. If you were going to deliberately engineer a situation where you could (pretend to) make a stand you couldn't have come up with a much better one.
Shrewd? Probably. Able to spot a chance to make a few bucks? Definitely. But I don't think 'idiot' is an accurate term.
Call me cynical if you like, but how many people had heard of him prior to all this happening? How many know his name now?
Did his journalistic reputation for not revealing sources go up or down, as a result of all this? Will this, in turn, not likely lead to people who have committed - shall we say - 'questionable' acts agreeing to be interviewed by him, when they won't speak to other journalists?
Lastly, if you're going to make this kind of a career-enhancing stand, why not make it over a tape showing nothing of any use, as opposed to a tape of a child murder? Perhaps because people don't take things like the latter lightly and, while you want to make money, you don't necessarily want to get killed over it. If you were going to deliberately engineer a situation where you could (pretend to) make a stand you couldn't have come up with a much better one.
Shrewd? Probably. Able to spot a chance to make a few bucks? Definitely. But I don't think 'idiot' is an accurate term.
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 14:27
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
- Local time
- Today, 13:27
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,241
KenHigg -
The disclosure laws often are state-specific. ALL parties including doctors, lawyers, clergy, and journalists can be compelled to reveal what they know about planned murders, rapes, etc. There is a civic duty to report such items to the police. Professional privilege rarely applies for such cases.
Another problem is that the line is blurred beyond such clear-cut crimes as ra**, murder, child molestation, arson, and other physically destructive crimes. Once you get out into "my neighbor left out a small personal debt repayment from his income tax" territory, the obligation becomes a lot more tenuous.
With proper credentials, there are cases of journalistic privilege for which I firmly support the journalist. For instance, insider whistle-blowing cases where a given business is being run by looters. The informant would surely not wish to have his/her name published for all to see. And a journalist who does investigative reporting absolutely MUST have this kind of trust with the persons he is interviewing.
Mr. Wolf might not be able to supply such proper credentials, which weakens his case. Therefore, I will state directly that I think he picked the wrong windmill for jousting.
The disclosure laws often are state-specific. ALL parties including doctors, lawyers, clergy, and journalists can be compelled to reveal what they know about planned murders, rapes, etc. There is a civic duty to report such items to the police. Professional privilege rarely applies for such cases.
Another problem is that the line is blurred beyond such clear-cut crimes as ra**, murder, child molestation, arson, and other physically destructive crimes. Once you get out into "my neighbor left out a small personal debt repayment from his income tax" territory, the obligation becomes a lot more tenuous.
With proper credentials, there are cases of journalistic privilege for which I firmly support the journalist. For instance, insider whistle-blowing cases where a given business is being run by looters. The informant would surely not wish to have his/her name published for all to see. And a journalist who does investigative reporting absolutely MUST have this kind of trust with the persons he is interviewing.
Mr. Wolf might not be able to supply such proper credentials, which weakens his case. Therefore, I will state directly that I think he picked the wrong windmill for jousting.
Similar threads
