Mata Musing: I've been watching the Taracani story quietly for the past week. For me, it is less about the specific defendant than it is about the confidentiality of sources issue.
The press has been presenting itself as the gov't watchdog now for my entire life. While there is a large degree of truth to this, the troubling question to me is... who watches the watchdog?
For the most part, journalists are subject to no accountability for lies, mistruths and open agendas, short of civilian lawsuits for libel. If they pass on sensitive intel that affects either a defendant's right to a fair trial, or puts our troops on the frontlines of war in more jeopardy, what penalties do they suffer? Essentially none. They can be tossed in jail for a nominal time for refusing to reveal sources, but now pro-media'ites seek immunity even from that.
They are, in essence, asking to be "more than equal" in the eyes of the law merely for their profession.
Never has the power of the press to misinform, sans penality, become more apparent to the American public than in this past election campaign. Various news organization' or journalists' intentions became transparent to an information age savvy audience. As misinformation was spread, repercussions were felt down the line. Retractions and corrections either never came, or were buried as a non-story with less aplomb than the original lie.
Take for example all the polls proclaiming that most of America thinks that Saddam had something to do with 9:11. Never once has the President or his representatives said that Iraq had anything to do with the planning or implementation of AQ's attack on America. Yet how did America come to this conclusion?
The press, of course. With "speculation" and "analysis" rapidly replacing "news", the spinners implanted that notion in the nation themselves. If you keep repeating a lie long enough, it will be perceived as truth to those not more informed.
Bottom line, the press has put themselves in charge of the task of educating the American public with current events. So if we as a nation are misinformed, the press has no one to blame but themselves.
So what happens when a journalist spreads sensitive information or lies, then called on the legal carpet? They claim First Amendment rights, which they purport allows them confidentiality agreements and immunity to a court's demand for the source's identity. Unless there's a court precedent expanding on something I don't know of, that sure isn't what the First Amendment says when I read it. They can't just go willy-nilly, printing any darn thing they want.
Or can they?
Well I'm no lawyer - but on the issue of confidentiality agreements, I sure as heck know that any contract made between parties, and knowingly includes action that is clearly against written law, is null and void in any courtroom. My drift? If a journalist receives information that is prohibited by law to be passed on ... say for national security reasons... then it follows that any confidentiality agreement the journalist made with those who passed on the information isn't worth the paper it's printed on when contested in a court of law.
Thereby a journalist should reveal his source, or take his punishment for not doing so, acting as an accomplice, without the pious claims of "watchdog" for the public status.
But I sure an not for any "shield laws" that allow special privileges for the press inre 1st Amendment rights. Otherwise I'm quite sure we'll see a rush of media grads, looking to use what was supposed to be a counterbalance information network, as a means to control thought and push various agendas unchecked.
No comments:
Post a Comment