Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An open letter to the press

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:09 PM
Original message
An open letter to the press
Those with great power have an awesome responsibility.

In nearly every state in the union, Judith Miller would have the power not to answer Fitzgeralds questions. Over 40 states have journalistic shield laws which prevent prosecutors and other officials from compelling the names of sources. In many cases this power borders on the absolute. The people with a priviledge like this are very small in number. Among professions only priests, doctors, and phyciatrists join journalists if having the priviledge. Among personal relationships only married couples have an analogous priviledge. In all of these cases society has determined that the value of preserving those relationships outweighs the value in evidence that might come from breaching those priviledges.

That puts journalists in pretty exclusive company. Teachers, for instance, must report any sign of drug use by students (even small amounts of pot or tobacco) despite the fact that doing so may deny that student a college education. The founders wanted you to have this power. They understood the vital role that a free press plays.

In addition to that priviledge, jounalists in the US have some of the strongest protections against libel suits by public figures, even accidental ones, that have ever existed. Not only must you be wrong and harm the reputation of the public figure, but you have to have acted with either malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Both are standards that are so hard to prove that one would be hard pressed to find many cases of sucessful libel suits of major news outlets by politicians. That is as it should be.

But there is a underlying reason for you having these priviledges. In return you are supposed to be akin to a fourth branch of government. You are supposed to be a final check on the unbridaled power of the other branches. You are failing miserably in your mission. Instead of serving as a break on this administration's power you are serving as an amplifier. Judith Miller is in jail tonight not to protect a whistle blower who stood up to the Bush administration but to protect a Bush administration hatchet man who went after a whistle blower who stood up to the Bush administration.

In the summer preceeding September 11th, the press was obsessed with a missing young woman, the creepy Congressman who had dated her, and sharks. After September 11th we were told that things would change. We were now a serious people, who were going to have a serious press. So what happened?

We just had a Presidential campaign. If one read only the corporate press one would have thought that the only issues were, the war in Iraq, terrorism, gay marriage, what some wacked out liars said about Kerry's Vietnam service, and the economy. Some of those were, indeed, serious issues. Others were out and out distractions.

What about the deficit? Did either candidate have a plan that added up to eliminate or at least reduce the deficit, don't ask the media they have no idea. Did either candidate have any plan to insure the uninsured, don't ask the media they have no idea. Did either candidate have a plan to help stop or at least fix the damage caused by outsourcing, don't ask the media they have no idea. You in the press were far more interested in men marrying men and swift boat liars, than in any of the above issues.

Now we have another terrorist attack. What were the media discussing in the lead up to it? Why a missing young woman and sharks, of course. Sadly for the media there was no creepy Congressman to make the missing young woman case more alluring, but there was a bunch of black folks to make look evil or incompetent or both so it was a bit of a wash.

This country now has three 24 hour a day news networks and major hour long news shows on its three regular networks at least twice a week. Yet, where did a person have to go to find out about living on poverty level wages? FX and MTV. No, I am not making that up. FX had an episode on 30 days about living on the minimum wage for 30 days and MTV had a True Life episode about three teenagers living in poverty. Both were well done and very illuminating. Both would have made a wonderful Dateline or 20/20 but 20/20 was too busy trashing Matthew Sheppard and Dateline was too busy investigating the book of Revelation to promote a miniseries.

You have failed the nation. In a year which has seen concrete evidence that the President exaggerated intelligence to goad the country into war, a war which has killed over 1700 Americans and an unknown number, but at least in the tens of thousands, of Iraqis, we have seen more coverage of the spat between Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields over psychiastry. In a year which has seen the unmasking of the supposedly wartime secure White House letting a tax dodging, prostitute unfettered access to the White House press room while simultaniously condemning gays, we have seen coverage of the totally unique phenomina of the chair of the Democratic party saying bad things about Republicans (most of which were true by the way).

I honestly can't recall the lasttime I watched the likes of 20/20 or Dateline for anything like news value. Frankly, I haven't watched them much at all. Journalists have an important job. When you don't do your jobs, people die in wars that shouldn't have been faught. When you don't do your jobs, people wind up thinking that Saddam was behind September 11th. When you don't do your jobs, Presidents can lie with impunity. From the day this administration took over, you have served as an amplifier for its message. You let them trash former Clinton and Gore staffers for supposedly having trashed the White House, when we later found out (thanks to Bob Barr) that it was a lie. You let them lead us into war on the wing of lies, you let them smear McCain, Cleland, and Kerry (war vets one and all) while you protected their draft dodging hides.

It is not your job to treat the interesting as if it is important but to treat the important as if it is interesting. Instead of regaling us with tales of missing women in Aruba, you should be telling us tales of people who can't get medical care due to lack of insurance. Instead of telling us about sharks in Florida, you should be telling us about memos out of Britain.

In short, do your jobs. No one else can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very thorough and well put. And because of the current state of the
crop of lazy supermarket rag media whores, people wonder why I and many others like me, could care less if any of them rots in jail for the rest of their lives. They haven't done a lick of work FOR us for a long time, and we're supposed to rally round them when they are in trouble? I don't think so. There are many more thousands of persons who I will concentrate my attention and energies on before I get around to worrying about some hack pretty boys and girls on the boob tube and scandal rags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. You overstate the protection offered by "shield laws"....
This article gives a sense of how limited and confusing they are:

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1086825172.php


one passage: "Even in states with strong shield laws, anyone wanting access to a reporter's sources and notes could simply file a subpoena in federal court, where a judge could ignore the state law and apply the much more limited federal reporter's privilege," says Thomas Burke, a lawyer in the San Francisco office of the media law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP....Goldberg, ASNE's outside counsel, adds that the scope of a shield law "will vary not only by state but by judge, depending on how liberally a particular judge wants to interpret the law." A case in Alabama illustrates that some judges can be stingy indeed in their interpretation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The federal run around would have limits
For example if I am suing a paper in my own state I fail to see any ability to get a federal subpeona. Though I will admit the shield laws have definite limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. don't know how it would play out in any given case....
but that "interstate commerce" thing has a long reach sometimes and with most newspapers available in every state via mail or the Internet... I'd say an aggessive prosecutor would probably have a hook in their somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You have a point about the net
and in the case of crimes one can often find a concurrent federal crime if one tries hard enough. For instance, most drug crimes are both federal and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. here's something really interesting:
Are the people who post in the "Late Breaking News" section of DU "journalists"?

Well, there is a shield law bill pending in Congress and here is how it defines "journalist" -- do you think DU is covered here?


H.R. 581 defines a journalist (a "covered person") as:

A) an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that--

(i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or

(iii) operates a news agency or wire service;

(B) a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such an entity; or

(C) an employee, contractor, or other person who gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for such an entity.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2005/02/journalists-and-bloggers-shield-laws.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Law and Order had a case about some guy who
blogged about motorcyclists who had a source in a murder case. He got ruled a journalist but it ended up he was the source so that ended that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. seems to me LBN is a "news agency" of a sort....
and we are "other persons" associated it. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It would make an interesting case
though I can't really see a source issue coming up on that since they are reposting other published pieces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. true... but DUers often conduct their own "newsgathering"...
it happened quite a lot during the post-election inquiries into vote fraud, for example. People called and talked to people. Just something to think about. I'm a journalist/columnist/journalism prof and this issue intrigues me, as you would expect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. ah that explains the knowledge of shield law
It is intriguing. I hadn't thought of LBN on this issue. I also am torn about Miller. I understand the notion of slippery slopes but I do think cases like this are substantially different than cases like Watergate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I too am divided on Miller and wrote my column on it this week...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Nice column though I must say I am even more willing to see the
reports in the Wen Lo Lee case have to testify or have their papers pay up for damaging him and whoever leeked there is either career or a Clinton appointee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Excellent letter. If it makes even one person in the news media
stop and at least think about what they are doing to this country, you will have done your job. Very well written. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. i am a 3 decade obsessive news watcher, oct i turned off the news
and i havent been back on. i watched morning afternoon night into late night. and i watch it no more. i read times, newsweek and some journal? from 15 on. and i watch news no more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. Amazing letter.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Terrific. I'd love to see that in print.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txindy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. Recommended
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC