It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Reporters Punished For Not Revealing Their Sources
page: 10
share:
This is an atrocity. Just when you thought rights and liberties couldn't get stripped anymore this has to happen....
ap.tbo.com...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge's decision to punish five reporters for refusing to identify their sources for stories about nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee threatens to chill vital newsgathering at a time of increased government secrecy, advocates say.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Wednesday held the reporters in contempt and fined each of them $500 a day until they reveal their source. He said the information was needed for Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist once suspected of spying, to litigate his privacy lawsuit against government officials.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
$500 a day is extremely excessive!
ap.tbo.com...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A judge's decision to punish five reporters for refusing to identify their sources for stories about nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee threatens to chill vital newsgathering at a time of increased government secrecy, advocates say.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Wednesday held the reporters in contempt and fined each of them $500 a day until they reveal their source. He said the information was needed for Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist once suspected of spying, to litigate his privacy lawsuit against government officials.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
$500 a day is extremely excessive!
I never know how to react to these stories about confidential sources.
True that without confidentiality some people would not come forward and that in some cases (like deepthroat) you can understand that the source's life is in danger.
However, if the source is in no real danger then why not lend greater credibility to the story by identifying them? Seems to me that if all news was from "confidential" sources then there would be a major lack of credibility (even more than now! )
I guess the principle of keeping a source confidential needs to be protected for thoses cases where there is peril, but maybe a judge should be allowed to review the situation in camera and decide if there is a valid reason for not revealing the source?
True that without confidentiality some people would not come forward and that in some cases (like deepthroat) you can understand that the source's life is in danger.
However, if the source is in no real danger then why not lend greater credibility to the story by identifying them? Seems to me that if all news was from "confidential" sources then there would be a major lack of credibility (even more than now! )
I guess the principle of keeping a source confidential needs to be protected for thoses cases where there is peril, but maybe a judge should be allowed to review the situation in camera and decide if there is a valid reason for not revealing the source?
new topics
-
In an Historic First, In N Out Burger Permanently Closes a Location
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago -
MH370 Again....
Disaster Conspiracies: 1 hours ago -
Are you ready for the return of Jesus Christ? Have you been cleansed by His blood?
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 4 hours ago -
Chronological time line of open source information
History: 5 hours ago -
A man of the people
Diseases and Pandemics: 6 hours ago -
Ramblings on DNA, blood, and Spirit.
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 7 hours ago -
4 plans of US elites to defeat Russia
New World Order: 8 hours ago -
Thousands Of Young Ukrainian Men Trying To Flee The Country To Avoid Conscription And The War
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago
0