wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] RC from Queens August 10, 2007 - 10:44AM

  I think it depends on how you define as a journalist. Anyone can call themselves a journalist (i.e. Sean Hannity thinks he is a journalist)

  In the old days costs and licensing were a major barrier to entry for people to start newspapers, TV stations, magazines, radio stations, broadcast networks. So the fact that you were hired made you a journalist.

  What do we do now when there are no rules as to who can become a journalist and that anyone who can get server space somewhere and can print whatever they want and can call themselves a journalist.

  The marketplace can set those rules, but the marketplace has never had the kinds of choices that it now has. Viewers have their own definition of what is quality based on the Nielson and Arbitron ratings and web traffic of specific news stories such a "oddly enough" on Yahoo.

  
  
• [2] Kathy from NJ August 10, 2007 - 12:26PM

  The administration simply manipulated the law to serve their personal desire for revenge against a constitutional patriot. In exchange for not implicating the true source of the leak, Libby was promised a commutation. Yes, journalists have the right to protect their sources. Or are we a society of professional snitches?

  
  
• [3] Michael August 10, 2007 - 12:35PM

  The whole episode was a farce; a classic case of grandstanding lawyers more interested in promoting themselves as First Amendment heroes then the well-being of their clients. Miller would not have spent a day in jail had her lawyer contacted Libby's lawyer on Day One to request the waiver (which she eventually received).

  
  
• [4] Bob Frump from Summit NJ August 21, 2007 - 09:12PM

  History does repeat itself first as drama and then as comedy so the Pentagon Papers was certainly in a league far above Scooter-gate. But the issue of protection of sources of serious journalists and authors is a real one and absolutely essential to our freedoms. The whole issue of whether "bloggers" or anyone with a modem should have the same protection as a reporter from the New York Times will sort itself out in the courts. (Certainly, there are a few hundred bloggers out there who would have given Pearlstine a fairer book reviews than the New York Times polemic last Sunday.)

  Point is: we need a federal shield law. Even for Hannity, who I agree is bombastic. And yes, even for Mr. Novak. By my judgement and my politics, he erred grieveously. Whose to say someone else's politics and judgement would censure me for writing this post? There is no First Amendment protection of sources. But neither is there a clear Second Amendment right to own a firearm. But the NRA has done a damned good job of establishing a reasonable belief that there is and popularizing the right. Those interested in free speech should take a page from that book re the protection of sources, whether you are conservative or liberal. (NOT looking for a gun debate here. It's just a point.)

  Bob