Bush Officials Oppose Media Shield Bill, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 3-4-2008 @ 08:53 PM by DimensionalDetective

Bush Officials Oppose Media Shield Bill


www.rawstory.com
Attorney General Michael Mukasey and three other top Bush administration officials are weighing in against legislation that would allow reporters to protect the identities of confidential sources who provide sensitive, sometimes embarrassing information about the government.

(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:05 PM by 1Angrylightbulb
reply to post by eyes2open



but if the source can't remain anonymous to be protected you won't have any government officials or workers giving information on something bad or corrupt. They are not going to risk their jobs to leak out a little bit of info if the government is going to come cracking down on them.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:08 PM by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by 1Angrylightbulb



Which is PRECISELY why these criminals want that tossed out...They know it will intimidate ANYONE from speaking out. It's the last step in total media infiltration---One that is already 95% corrupted and corporate ran.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:11 PM by 1Angrylightbulb
reply to post by DimensionalDetective



Exactly.

For a government for the people and by the people the elected government officials seem to be trying to throw down as many fences and barricades as they can.


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 09:40 PM by Sublime620
reply to post by eyes2open



That's not true. Well, first of all, they already do that. They just say, "According to my source..." (ie. It's not been verified, but it's possible that...)

Secondly, if a source gives information, it's not fact, and the media cannot claim it as such. It is simply a piece of "evidence" towards the fact, and could promote investigation.

Third, this bill only protects the government. If these people were so concerned with holding the media responsible, wouldn't this bill be generalized to cover everyone?

Keep in mind, if the story is a lie, and the media claims it truth, that's defamation or libel. Then the source could possibly be called forth.

Otherwise, there's no reason to force the media to divulge sources on any bad thing about the government.

Goodbye whistleblowers!

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Sublime620]


reply posted on 3-4-2008 @ 10:40 PM by AceWombat04
One of the most fascinating yet overlooked (or perhaps taken for granted) aspects of societies based on representative governments is the large role that trust plays in their functioning.

We place trust in our elected officials that they will represent us. They could easily, and often do, abuse that trust. We entrust our security to fellow citizens who volunteer for military service. The military is nonetheless not always utilized to our benefit or in the service of our best interests.

Likewise, we place a level of trust in our journalists. A journalist is - or used to be - judged based upon his or her integrity, honesty, and objectivity. Those to which we bestow the greatest trust are those with distinguished careers, and track records of forthright investigative journalism, reporting, and/or broadcasting. Granted, they could easily abuse this trust. They could lie, or confabulate, or report news based upon other people's agendas. They might fabricate sources, or embellish real ones. However, if there remain honest, forthright journalists, then they must rely on sources. Here again enters the notion of trust.

A journalist's sources must have trust in he or she that they will not reveal them, lest it compromise their identity. While it is true that such secrecy creates the potential for abuse (as with any personal or institutional secrecy,) it is also true that without it, many a whistleblower, conscientious dissident, or inside scoop might be exposed to ruination - or far worse. This is why journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal a source in some instances. They know that their journalistic careers and reputations hinge on the magic word, "trust." If sources know that they cannot trust them, then they aren't going to confide in them.

All of this brings us to some very important questions which, in my opinion, should be on each of our minds; questions we may need to look into the mirror and ask ourselves, sad though it may be that we must.

Is it possible that a lack of transparency such as this allows journalists to deceive their public? Yes. It is definitely possible. There is even some evidence to support that conclusion.

Is it certain, however, that total transparency with regard to sources could destroy the capacity for trust in journalists, thus potentially damaging whatever remains of our supposedly free press beyond repair? In my opinion, yes.

So the real question is: would we rather trust journalists (I am making a distinction between true journalism and the mainstream media as a whole or as a product,) or would we rather trust our government? Perhaps the saddest thing is that we must make such a choice at all.


reply posted on 4-4-2008 @ 12:38 AM by FRIGHTENER
reply to post by DimensionalDetective



Well said, DD, Star!

Poor little journalists, running around sniffing out a possible story,
finding someone who will 'talk', then writing & publishing; only to be
thrown in jail for NOT revealing their source! Pathetic!
Pages:     ^^TOP^^