Bush Officials Oppose Media Shield Bill

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)

Oh Boy...I don't even think I have to delve into why this is bad...Now why on earth would the most crooked administration to ever foul the Whitehouse with their stench not want a media "shield" in place? Hopefully this wussy Congress doesn't cow-tow down and give these idiots another way to get away with murder by going after the press that break stories on THEIR corruption!

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If the media didn't have to reveal their sources then they could claim any information wether true or not and just calim it came from a source. Information, if not allowed to be verified is not transparancy. i am sure the Dems would agree when they get back in power and the tables are reversed. This isn't a Bush thing, and I am an independant, it's a rights thing.

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 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 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 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]

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 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!

well if that bill isn't passed then i bet the media will start spreading secrets about the us government and the bush administration. thats not right.

i agree this is bad on overall principle however there are times i think that protecting a confidential source just isnt justified.

i can only cite one case and it happened long enough ago im not sure i could find references for it if i was inclined to though some of you may recall the incident.

it was in the 90's and osama had been a bad boy but was being protected by the taliban in afghanistan. he'd been using sattelite cell phones and because of that we knew where he was pretty much all the time.

some low level scumbag who wanted a soundbite tells a reporter that we can track him anytime he turns on his phone.

the reporter not wanting to miss a scoop runs that story, next day osama turns off his phones and disappears into the ether.

sorry, i feel the guy who leaked that is guilty of treason and providing that al queda did pull 911 this guy is responsible. id like him hung...publicly but thats just me.

so, wheres the trade off? we NEED whistleblowers but do we need to protect those who are essentially guilty of treason? and not just treason of exposing a guilty politician but those that are guilty of giving up state secrets that can get someone killed?