burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


10.04.2007

 

The shield

The Senate Judiciary Committee, the one down in Washington that is, passed legislation today by a 15-2 vote that would establish a federal reporters’ privilege law to protect the exchange of information between journalists and confidential sources.

It's something the Vermont Press Association, among others, has argued for in light of an increasing number of cases in which journalists have been forced to testify in court. That has a way of quashing the public's sense that we are independent, not tools of the government. It would even apply, apparently, to bloggers (what a world). Of course, the Scooter Libby case is the most high profile recent national impetus for such a law.

Don't hold your breath. The Associated Press reports that the legislation faces opposition in the full Senate and the White House.
"The Bush administration opposes the measure on grounds it would make it
harder to trace the source of leaks that could harm national security.

"So does U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who subpoenaed reporters to
testify against White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in a case that grew
out of Fitzgerald's CIA leak probe. Libby was convicted of obstruction, perjury
and lying to the FBI; his sentence was commuted by President Bush."


The law that passed the committee today, co-sponsored by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would:

- Establish a federal qualified reporters’ privilege to protect and
encourage the free flow of information between journalists and confidential
sources.

- Reconcile a reporter’s need to maintain confidentiality -- in order to
ensure that sources will speak openly and freely -- with the public’s right to
effective law enforcement and fair trials.

- Balance the public interest in combating crime and protecting national
security and the public interest in ensuring a free and vibrant press by
providing that a federal court can only force a journalist to reveal
confidential source information when the information is truly crucial to a case
or investigation.

- Require the party seeking a reporter's confidential information to
exhaust all reasonable alternative sources before turning to the media.

- Contain exceptions to the privilege for those situations where
information sharing is critical. For example, a reporter may not withhold
source information where such information is needed to prevent a terrorist
attack, significant harm to our national security, death, kidnapping, or
substantial bodily harm. Journalists who witness crimes also cannot refuse
to share their eyewitness observations.

- Defines “journalist” to include anyone who regularly engages in
journalistic activities -- so that legitimate bloggers that disseminate
information about matters of public interest are covered by the qualified
privilege.

You can read the whole thing HERE.

And here you can read the Vermont Press Association's input:

Dear Senator Leahy:
On behalf of the Executive Board of the Vermont
Press Association, which represents the interests of the 10 daily and four dozen
non-daily newspapers circulating in Vermont, I have been asked to write in
support of all efforts to create a shield law that will provide further support
to the U.S. Constitution so reporters are able to gather news without fear of
being subpoenaed into court for just doing their job.

There has been an
increase in problems at both the federal and state court levels. Judges are
failing to properly interpret the Constitution when it comes to the First
Amendment and protecting journalists from unwarranted subpoenas.

Over the past year there have been two cases in Vermont where reporters
were forced to testify or provide video about public events when there were
scores of other witnesses, including law enforcement personnel.

In the most recent case, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Spooner v.
Town of Topsham that a reporter for the tiny Journal Opinion in rural Bradford,
Vt. had to testify in court about a public meeting of the town selectmen that
the reporter covered. Others attended the meeting and minutes were also
recorded. A shield law would have prevented the subpoena.

The Journal Opinion reported about a decision made during a public meeting
of the board on Sept. 10, 2001 to appoint a new road foreman. The newspaper
reported that two of the three selectmen said part of their reasoning for
picking between the two finalists was that their choice was "younger." The other
finalist later filed a civil suit against the town claiming age discrimination
as the reason he was not hired. His allegations were based on the public
comments the two Select Board members made at the open meeting.

The trial court rejected efforts to get the reporter on the stand, citing
much of the precedent used at both the federal and state level. For some unknown
reason the Vermont Supreme Court took an ill-advised U-turn on this case.

This is a case that clearly shows a "chilling effect" on the right to
gather news. This small newspaper (circulation about 4,500 weekly) spent more
than $12,500 fighting the subpoena and winning at the trial court level, only to
learn of a last minute appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The pricetag is now
over $25,000 and the paper has thrown in the towel because it can not afford to
take the case further. The legal bill has had serious consequences for the cash
flow and monthly profit attempts by this small community newspaper.

The court thought the case would not create a burden for the newspaper. It
clearly has at the Bradford paper and for all the other newspapers in Vermont
upon learning about the poorly reasoned decision. The same can be said for all
those 1,000s of community newspapers spread across America that would be unable
to afford such a costly fight.

I know Ross Connolly, the longtime publisher and editor of the Hardwick
Gazette also has sent you his concerns. The VPA Executive Board would echo his
thoughts.

This is a time when the nation needs a strong news gathering effort not
only in Vermont, but across the nation. Newspapers can not afford to have their
reporters sitting around waiting to give depositions or testimony in court when
the information sought is protected by the First Amendment of the
Constitution.

Thank you for your time and if you wish any clarification or further
elaboration please don’t hesitate to contact me or the association.

Sincerely,
Mike Donoghue
Executive Director
Vermont Press
Association


- Terri Hallenbeck

Comments:
What sort of crazy fascist believes in freedom of the press??
 
Freedom of the Press??!!

Only a deranged mind like that of known anarchist RALPH WRIGHT could possibly believe in such a radical concept.
 
I guess if the press were more of an honorable institution as it used to be, instead of the leftist water-carriers for the democrats, this wouldn't be necessary. This is giving license to trash like the New York Times to print even more phony stories without having to worry about such trivial points as truth.
 
They don't call him leaky leahy for nothing you know.
 
Ah ... the right wingers are in favor of freedom of the press ... just as long as nobody actually uses that freedom except Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.
 
Oh, and don't forget the "swift Boat Veterans" - After all, they only speak the truth!

Yeah Right!
 
Yea, Kerry, McCain and Cleland are all criminals. (who served honorably in Vietnam.)

Limbaugh, Cheney and Bush are all patriots! (who had other priorities in durring the Vietnam War.)

And anyone who argues is a big liar!!
 
If torture includes forcing terrorists to listen to Christene Aguillera songs over and over, I guess that's torture. Like listening to Bernie Sanders rant and rave to an empty Senate chamber! Otherwise, no one has ever proven to have been tortured except in the minds of the ACLU traitors.
 
Not "proven" ??

The White House outlined torture methods, used by the CIA, in a White House memo that came to light this week.
 
That is no more than hazing.
 
Bush administration has previously told Congress, even described to the little pinheads, what passes for "torture". But now, for political purposes they claim not to ever know what was going on! (Like not "knowing" the same intelligence that Bush knew before 9/11) Of course, their leader, Teddy Kennedy could probably describe "water torture" to them!
 
Name calling doesn't change the facts: the Bush administration set out detailed instructions for torture and implemented it.
 
I believe "Bubba" just called members of the ACLU "traitors" and said that CIA interrogation techniques are no more than "hazing". It appears that he gets some (most?) of his information and ideas from people like Ann Coultor.

In addition to being silly and uninformed, that kind of talk is dangerous. It is sometimes used by people who do more than talk (remember Oklahoma City?). And no, I'm not suggesting that Bubba is a terrorist. Only that his language is unnecessarily provocative and does not contribute to a reasoned discussion.

C'mon Bubba. If you want to persuade me that your views have merit, you need to do more than channel Rush Limbaugh.
 
And maybe you can stop parroting the MOVEON.ORG and MEDIAMATTERS instructions they give to their minions.
 
Bubba's attitudes perfectly describe why the Republican Party is so weak ... and how their policies have weakened America.

For example: They condone torture. Then they lie about it. Then they try to justify their policy of torture. Then they attack the people (like McCain) who know that a policy that condones torture is detrimental to our character and our safety.

This type of mental weakness has undermined out national security, increased our national debt, squandered our credibility in the international community, resulted in the death of thousands of US soldiers and countless civilians.
 
Lets elect Richardson and get out of Iraq!
 
Why not ask Jason Gibbs(if he's not ill from bad half-shells) if he believes in the freedom of the press? See if he'll tow Boss Jim's Republican line.
 
Bubba

It may come as a surprise to you, but I do not read anything from MoveOn.org or MediaMatters (I'm too busy). Therefore, I cannot "parrot" them.

It is interesting that you characterize those who do as "minions" since virtually everything you say is straight from the Rush playbook. Does that mean you're his minion? Why not skip the name calling and just deal with the issues?

We should all form our opinions based on the best available evidence. Sometimes that means keeping an open mind about information that you think is tainted; sometimes it is actually the truth.

You appear to have a filter that prevents you from accepting information that doesn't fit into your preconceived image of the world. I suppose there is comfort in that kind of certainty but it doesn't involve critical thinking or growth.
 
The only problem I have with a press-shield law is that the use of anonymous sources means that the source can say anything he or she wants, and the media outlet can report it, without any consequences. That's not right.

So someone can anonymously accuse a government official or company CEO of wrongdoing, because that government official or CEO passed me over for a promotion or didn't give me the pay raise I wanted, and the media can report it, and the accuser never has to be identified?

All so that the reporter can get glory for reporting a "story?"

That's wrong.
 
Common sense at last...thank you.

"The only problem I have with a press-shield law is that the use of anonymous sources means that the source can say anything he or she wants, and the media outlet can report it, without any consequences. That's not right."

The press at both extremes is out of control. I struggle to see fairness in reporting. It is more commonly using their circulate their agendas. It is fairly comical to listen to the NY Times, CNN or Fox maintain it is objective in its presentation of the facts.

If we as individuals make assertions that are unfounded, slanderous or libelous there are consequences for those actions. Reporters should not be protected from these basic tenents.

I am not surprises such a left winged proposal would be sponsored by a representative of Vermont.
 
Step aside NY Times, Washington Post and Woodward and Bernstein, the Bradford Journal Opinion is in the forefront of protecting the First Ammendment. I'm sure legal syllabus' at Harvard and Yale are being changed to include Spooner v. Town of Topsham. Geesh.
 
Yum. I like snacks.
 
Cheesy snacks?
 
Yum. Cheese. I love cheese.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010