"Fear & Loathing in the News Room"

[H2O Man]

Freelance writer Michael Gillespie's fantastic article on the media reaction to the judge's ruling in the Plame case can be found at:

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/8875

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. 4 important paragraphs

Taylor quoted from Justice Potter Stewart’s opinion in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972): “The reporter’s constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source stems from the broad societal interest in a full and free flow of information to the public. It is this basic concern that underlies the Constitution’s protection of a free press, because the guarantee is ‘not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of us all.’” Taylor reported that, “unfortunately for any subpoenaed journalists—and their sources—Justice Stewart’s argument for a broad First Amendment reporter’s privilege came in a dissenting opinion. Although subpoenas of reporters are extremely rare, the widespread notion that they have a broad First Amendment privilege not to testify rests upon shaky legal foundations, at least in the context of criminal investigations.”

According to Taylor, Justice Byron White, who wrote the majority opinion in Branzburg v. Hayes, came close to holding that no reporter’s privilege exists in criminal grand jury investigations, and it was Justice Lewis Powell, Jr., who cast the deciding vote and qualified White’s holding in a concurrence writing that the courts should block demands that reporters disclose the names of their confidential sources unless investigators can prove a legitimate need for the information. Many lower courts have protected the journalist’s (and the public’s) interests in shielding their sources, but mostly in civil cases.

“In the current case, in which the reporters were firsthand witnesses to possibly criminal acts, the odds are strong that the courts would reject any claims of privilege, order the reporters to name their sources, and jail them for contempt if they refused,” wrote Taylor.

The three part test that Branzburg v. Hayes imposes on investigators is this: When a reporter is subpoenaed to divulge confidential sources to a grand jury, government must first show that the information is clearly relevant to a specific violation of the law; then that the information cannot be obtained by alternative means; and finally that there is a compelling and overriding interest in the information.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/8875

[displacedtexan]

2. That really was an excellent piece!

Thanks for posting the link!

[indigobusiness]

3. Beautiful!!!....Novak is toast.

“In the current case, in which the reporters were firsthand witnesses to possibly criminal acts, the odds are strong that the courts would reject any claims of privilege, order the reporters to name their sources, and jail them for contempt if they refused,” wrote Taylor.

[qb]

4. This is excellent. Jouralists deserve protection when they're providing

vital information to the public, not when they're participating in a conspiracy to smear a critic of the administration.