Federal prosecutors crack down on a journalist

[erik_kosberg]

with a sealed transcript and an unidentified judge:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/...0-reporter.htm

Who’s next?

[KateTPZ]

Is it just me or does it sound like a witch hunt? Sealed transcript? Unidentified judge? It doesn't sound very American to me - regardless of whether or not Texas as a "shield law."

Although I think the mass media do a tremendous amount of damage in this country, there are many things we need to know that we will not know if reporters are forced to reveal their sources. I think it stinks - there's most certainly something rotten here.

It's important to pick the correct title for this person.

They're not a reporter or a journalist. They're a writer researching for a book.

No protection.

As for what the difference between a reporter and a journalist is, put both in a room with a news director and have the news director reject a story idea from them based on time constraints, issues, or other problems thay have with it.

The journalist will fight.
The reporter will not.

[erik_kosberg]

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Radio-Television News Directors Association and the Society of Professional Journalists apparently consider Leggett to be a journalist. They have filed an amicus brief in her case.

[poseidon]

I guess that, despite whether or not this is a journalist or an author, I've always been a bit torn over this kind of situation.

On the one hand, I understand confidence in certain situations. When a patient is with his or her doctor, I see where confidence is needed. When a parishoner is confessing to his or her pastor/priest, I see where confidence is needed. When a client speaks to his or her lawyer, I see where confidence is needed.

I don't see why the same confidentiality is granted to reporters. I do understand that it would make their job more difficult if they couldn't guarrantee the confidence of their sources, but I don't see that it is the same type of protection that is warranted in the other situations.

That's just my opinion...
Jeff

[erik_kosberg]

Not just more difficult, but possibly deadly. If journalists investigating illegal acts come to be perceived as nothing more than a evidence-gathering extension of the police, might they not end up getting killed for that?

I do understand that it would make their job more difficult if they couldn't guarrantee the confidence of their sources

[erik_kosberg]

CNN has an update on this case:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/15/wr....ap/index.html

[vemartin]

On the one hand I can see the governments concern in wanting what she has, but I in no way condone the jailing for contempt of this woman! And the fact that it was done secretly smacks of a “kangaroo court” third world mentality that we should not and do not condone in this country. How dare they try!

Doe anyone now doubt the John Ashcroft is the wrong man for the job of Attorney General?

[Redlass]

I do think that most journalists understand that there is a possibility that they could go to jail for protecting their sources. And most journalists I knew were willing to do so.

Sometimes the only way to get information is through confidentiality. Despite this, most newspapers have strong policies about when a source may remain confidential. The newspaper I worked at had a policy against it and each exception was carefully considered and argued about at great length.

Erik is right. Sometimes revealing a source can put either the reporter or the source in danger. And if you break a promise (oral contract?) of confidentiality once, then no other source will ever trust you to keep it. Although there are journalists who have forgotten this, we only ever get one name and reputations aren't easily repaired.

[evmori]

I actually feel the whole thing has gotten out of hand. Reporters wanting to get the "best" version with the most glitz! Sometimes they overlook the facts to be first! I realize they have a tough job and if they told who their sources were might put their lives in danger, but it seems when they are inaccurate and hurt innocent people, they have no remorse. I actually feel the whole thing has gotten out of hand.

Jeff, the RTNDA is about as out of touch with journalistic reality as the NAB. They're afraid that if this whiner screaming for protection under a loophole that she does not qualify gets cracked down on, then the lawmakers might question the loophole for their own people.

RTNDA = short-term benefit. They never look at the long term reprecussions. This is why vendors with fly-by-night crackpot systems like Parkervision absolutely love to demonstrate to the RTNDA twittery.

They don't realize that extending the benefit of the shield law to this crackpot just servers to dilute and pollute their own arguments and causes and rights to protection.

[erik_kosberg]

Leggett has been freed (at least temporarily) after the grand jury's term ended:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2002...iter_dc_2.html

[kurt_messick]

I recall Joe Orton, a playwright who went to prison (not for the same kind of thing, mind you). Upon getting out, he found a literary agent.

'Actually, I just got out of prison,' he said.
'Oh, the papers will love that,' the agent responded. 'Prison gives a writer credentials, whereas for everyone else, it takes them away...'

[pisces]

Years ago, when I was in I think, the 8th grade, I worked on the student newspaper. Even then, what we were taught first off from the get-go, was journalistic ethics.

We were taught that you must always balance your point of view, that there are two sides to every story, always report on the other side, and separate editorializing from actual objective reporting. And, this is 8th grade at age 14!

Unfortunately, these days, all sense of ethics has gone out of journalism. All right, I'm painting a broad brush here. But there does seem to be a general lack of ethics in journalism these days. It seems anybody can write anything no matter how much of a hatchet job it is. And, everyone's (journalists) got an agenda but still wants to hide behind freedom of the press.

I think something had to be done at some point. I think that if this puts the Press on notice and raises journalistic standards in the long run, then I am all for the Federal Government going full steam ahead.

Of course, I believe in freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but when something is written as fact, when in fact, it is really opinion (editorial) then there is a problem.

I, as a consumer have the right to be able to distinguish editorial from investigative (fact) reporting. Especially these days, when we've all got way too much information coming into our brains and don't necessarily have the time to filter everything and distinguish between what's what!

[mtbat]

this woman is NOT a journalist. what could she possibly have uncovered that is so important to her book? no matter what, she should still be able to use information she uncovered in her book AND turn the information over to the FBI. If the information she has is important to a case she should turn it over and stop being such a greedy writer wanna-be.

[pisces]

I think too many journalists are concerned with the "public's right to know" when they really should be thinking about the "public's NEED to know."

Do I really NEED to know everything about everything? Again, we've already got too much mindless information to file, filter, and screen out.

I can't see protecting a source when, initially, it wasn't a story that I, or the public, necessarily NEEDED to know about to improve my life. But that's me, and how I would do it if I were a journalist. I'm not.

If there were an absolute DIRECT public or safety issue or danger, or someone's life in jeopardy, then I can see protecting a source, maybe.

Then again, I'm selfish. I don't think I would go to jail for anything in the world. No stupid job is that important that you end up in jail for!

[realtraveller]

Texas does not have a shield law--end of story. This woman journalist or not doesn't have a leg to stand on for appeal. Why would she expect to be able to protect her sources given the Texas laws and why would her sources expect confidentiality?