Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Eh (Score:3, Insightful)

    The poor standing in the U.S. is primarily due to reporters not giving up sources, or crossing security lines. I am all for freedom of the press, but I am NOT for granting special privileges to the press. If I have material information in a criminal case, I am required to provide that information, or risk imprisonment: reporters should not get special treatment. Same thing with security lines.

    Note that none of this significantly impacts the actual reporting, including what is reported on and what is res
    • So you're saying that other countries have free press because the government forces them to expose their sources? Au contraire.. Doctors, lawyers and priests also have confidential relationships with people they talk to. If a doctor has information on a criminal investigation, I'm sure he will not break that confidential relationship? How would reporters be any different? In a free country, people are entitled to an opinion of their own. If you don't like it when someone writes something about you, sue them
      • Re:Eh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pudge (1) on 2004.02.04 12:11 (#28043) Homepage Journal
        So you're saying that other countries have free press because the government forces them to expose their sources?

        No, I am not saying anything of the sort, and I am not sure why you think I am. I am saying that many countries give press special treatment, and that I think that's a wrong thing to do (also, many other nations don't give the press special treatment, but either don't have laws requiring people to provide material evidence, or don't enforce them, which is often the case with the overburdened judicial systems in poorer countries).

        I have a bachelor's degree in journalism, I'm not just spouting off about something I don't know about; I merely think that journalists are not special and not deserving of special rights.

        Doctors, lawyers and priests also have confidential relationships with people they talk to. If a doctor has information on a criminal investigation, I'm sure he will not break that confidential relationship? How would reporters be any different?

        Doctors, lawyers, and priests all have confidentiality for the purpose of accomplishing some other goal: a doctor/lawyer/priest needs to be able to treat your wounds/soul/case and must therefore have your trust; if you don't trust them, they can't do their job. But the purpose of a journalist's confidentiality agreement is the end in itself -- to report secret information without revealing the source -- and IMO not deserving of special legal protection.

        In a free country, people are entitled to an opinion of their own. If you don't like it when someone writes something about you, sue them.

        I am not sure what you're referring to. Opinions and defamation lawsuits have nothing to do with the issue at hand. What we are talking about here is when a journalist has a source that gives information about criminal activity, such that the journalist is required by law to give the information he has, so the government can prosecute the crime. For example, perhaps I interviewed an escaped murderer, and I know how to contact him, and I refuse to tell the police. They would put me in jail until I told them, and rightfully so.

        Some states in the U.S. do have "shield laws" for journalists, so they are NOT required to reveal sources in criminal cases. It's been awhile since I've looked, and I am not sure which states, or how many there are.

        In all fairness, the US isn't rated all THAT low, but it's still strange that country claiming to be the 'free world' still rates lower than one of those silly little countries :)

        Only because the ratings include something as a "freedom" of the press that shouldn't be IMO. YMMV, but I thought I should at least explain it. :-)