It lets reporters protect people who come forward with pretty damning evidence.

So who defines which people are “reporters” or “crack pots?”. Are you a reporter because some big news corporation gave you that title? Are you a reporter because you towed the line at some collage and had your views properly vetted by academia?
Who watches the watches when the watches can shield themselves by claiming confidentiality and LIE without recourse. Sources that do not exist can be used by reporters to push whatever falsehood on the public and a “shield law” will ensure that will happen. It already happen under current law and will only increase when reporters can shield themselves from disclosing the truth.

I have friends that work in the newspaper business and they are not demigods of truth. “Shield Laws” make as much sense as allowing someone that is about to perform open heart surgery be shielded from being ask where he got his training and confirming it with the medical school.

Yes, 99% are good people but that 1% can give you a really bad day.

“We have the legal right to print any lie someone wants to tell us, destroy any life we care to, unwarranted, and suffer no consequences to ourselves or our ’sources’ (if we actually have any sources). You legally have to trust us.”

Those who apparently breached confidentiality to tell the media Hatfill was a “person of interest” are now themselves apparently persons of interest. I realize that noting this makes me a tinfoil-beanie’d rightwing wackadoo, but I do hope the everyo…

Democrats Should Worry About Where Rove Lands Next…

The mainstream media that has taken to pillorying the departing Karl Rove essentially for playing its own game now decries the natural evolution from its own outrage. A federal judge has ruled that journalists must reveal sources for an article……

Additional note: Where’s the left’s cry for THIS person’s ruined life?

You need only look at this:

Hatfill, a bioterrorism expert

to know where their cries are.

They are being drowned out by their fury over the unfair treatment of two bomb-carriers in SC and the like.

Honestly, you think a bioterrorism guy will get any help? Unless he’s on record saying there were no WMDs. Then they’d be falling over themselves trying to help the guy.

On August 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am, pickax411 said:
I have problems with special “Class” privileges being granted to self defining groups like “Reporters” and “Journalist.”

Generally, I’m ok with the Press Shield concept.

If MM got her hands on Beauchamp’s signed recanting, I think we’d all agree that both her and her source would be better off without her naming who gave it to her.

It lets reporters protect people who come forward with pretty damning evidence.

But I will also agree that often people who have no training of background in journalism often try to abuse the concept.

And when sources lead to people being strung up in the public eye, who end up not actually being guilty, then the reporters should be made to fess up.

If the source can be so completely wrong, they can be so completely KNOWN…

His reputation is ruined – he can’t get a job in his field due to this – and it stems from ‘leaks’ to reporters from our Justice Department and FBI.

How long is the public going to tolerate these ‘leaks’? Why can’t these agencies simply do their job and stay away from the sensationalistic opportunities to become somebody’s ‘Deep Throat’?

If this man truly is innocent ( and there’s been no legal proof otherwise at this point ) – is he just supposed to sit back and let the media and these secret sources ruin his life?

Scarier yet – it can happen to anyone.

Enough of these bogus ‘confidential’ sources. Sometimes, yes, they are crucial – but how is it legal for all these sources to be leaking confidential and sometimes crucially secret information and then get away with it?