Skip to main content

View Diary: Media ignore threat to hold Fox News reporter in contempt for protecting source in Aurora shooting (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I saw this and thought about posting it here. (25+ / 0-)

    I wasn't sure how I thought about it. What you said is about how I feel. I don't like Fox, but she did her job and is going to jail for it. Sad.

    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

    by JDWolverton on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

    •  All the more reason to stand up for her (14+ / 0-)

      It ain't freedom of the press if it is just for our side.  Change the story to an oil company insider spilling the beans on fracking and we'd sure want that reporter protected.

      And while I have the floor .... a point made elsewhere and worth repeating - the source of the diary story has absolutely NO bearing on the facts and evidence to be presented at a trial.  The notebook exists and will be (or not) entered into evidence.  Who alerted the reporter to the contents is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

      •  Freedom of the Press? Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm pretty sure her story was published.  Her injection into a life-felony criminal case is what's at issue.  If she refuses to disclose her source, she will have her day in court to argue why she is not in contempt.  The judge's gag order may or may not be valid. She may or may not be aiding someone who has violated that order. But she is still free to file any story she wants. No First Amendment violation there. Her ability to get people to possibly violate orders of future courts is not an abridgment of her First Amendment rights.

        In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

        by TampaCPA on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:01:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you have a problem calling what she does journal (4+ / 0-)

          ism? so what?

          if you want to DO something about ti george clooney had the right idea in 1996:

          George Clooney's Press Conference

          "Hi, thanks for coming out. Broadcasting stations such as NBC, CBS, USA Today, 60 minutes, and L.A. Times, were all wanting me to make some sort of comment about this tragedy because of my recent battle with the tabloids.
          My first reaction has been to stay out of this, I want to be fair to the Princess, this is not about me. But as I sit in front of my TV listening to tabloid journalists, and editor's dodging their own responsibility and placing the blame on the drunken driver, or society, or Princess Di, I now feel that the only fair thing that I can do is stand up and make one clear concise statement: Stand up and ask this to the self-appointed spokesman, Steven Coz, the editor of the National Enquirer, and all other tabloids positioning themselves as innocents;

          "The Princess of Wales is dead. And who should we see about that? The driver of the car, the paparazzis, or the magazines and papers who purchase these pictures and make bounty hunters out of photographers? The same magazines, television shows and papers that use their pages creating the news, causing altercations, and then filming them. Well, you must be exhilarated. You bought and paid for one of the greatest news stories of the year. And for your success you should be held accountable.

          But how will we do that? How will we make you responsible for your actions? Not buy your papers or watch your shows, maybe. Pass criminal laws restricting paparazzis? No. Censorship can never be the solution. The only thing worse than an out of control press acting with no regard for decency would be restricting that very same press. Ultimately there is no legislating good taste or doing what is right. And you, sir, and your colleagues, wallow in that fact. Mr. Coz, I watch as you scramble for high ground, saying that you won't purchase these pictures. Pictures of a dying Princess trapped in her car. Well, I am impressed. What ethics.

          Your cover of your magazine this week said "Di Can't Get Enough Sex." It's on the stands still. I also watch as you take your position on CNN, saying as long as there is a market for this then you are just supplying the goods. It's because of the public's insatiable appetite for celebrity. They're to blame, the public is.

          All right. So let's use your argument. There are also thousands of people with an insatiable appetite for crack. The person who supplies that is called a dealer, and if he's caught he goes to jail. A photographer will commit a crime to get compromising pictures and later you merely buy those pictures, absolving yourself of any responsibility. If you weren't hiding behind the profession of journalism, you would be an accomplice to a crime and you would go to jail. I am not singling you out, Mr. Coz, you have made yourself the spokesman. And this involves most press. But you are right about one thing. This is not about celebrity, this is about all of us, Richard Jewell, parents of children killed on Flight 800, everyone.

          But maybe there is something that we can do about you. You and all the editors, television and print, who purchase their news. Two words, "malicious intent." They are two words that every ethical journalist says is the loophole the tabloids hide behind. Those two words exist in a relatively recent Supreme Court decision changing the libel laws. We survived 120 years without them. You change these two words and all journalists are held accountable in a civil trial. One would still have to prove your story untrue, but they wouldn't have to prove the unprovable, what's in your mind. Was it your intent to be malicious? We cannot prove that. They are two words in the law that I will spend every free moment trying to change, and I am well aware of the undertaking, it is no small task.

          Now let's open a discussion about privacy. Not just for celebrities, but for everyone. If an outlet buys pictures and a photographer has committed a crime to get these pictures, then that outlet should be held responsible. Legitimate news sources like the LA Times and network news should draw a clear line in the sand. Do not purchase your news; do not use tabloids as a source. You define the difference between tabloid and legitimate news. Do your job. Inform responsibly. And as for you, Mr. Coz, and your colleagues, you have gone on television and you have washed your hands, and you have placed blame, and you have deflected responsibility, and yet I wonder how you sleep at night. You should be ashamed. Thank you."


 If the dnc dscc or dccc send you mailers, send that link back to them and tell them you won't send money to people who defend democrats who betray progressive principals!

          by daeros on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 03:16:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site