Saturday, November 26, 2005
Apropos a Federal Shield Law
A poster at Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly blog makes the point simply:
"A shield law is predicated on the press not being quislings to power. So long as they are, such a law simpy grants cover to their craviness.
"Posted by: SavageView on November 19, 2005 at 3:36 PM"
Judy, whom the Times (on Pinch's orders, probably) believed to be the poster child for a Federal shield law, is in fact the reason why maybe it's not necessary or even a bad thing.
Simply, why is a courtier like her entitled to protection for refusing to ID self-serving lying apparatchiks demanding anonymity in order to bull$h!t us? Does that help a free press? I mean, can a paper or magazine or news show be journalisticly valid devoid of any leaks of lies from any anonymous government sources? Of course it can. Judy, for example, towards the end of her stint at the Times served the arguably valuable service of being a front-page @$$ kisser of the administration. But what's the necessity of that, the value to us? Beats me.
"A shield law is predicated on the press not being quislings to power. So long as they are, such a law simpy grants cover to their craviness.
"Posted by: SavageView on November 19, 2005 at 3:36 PM"
Judy, whom the Times (on Pinch's orders, probably) believed to be the poster child for a Federal shield law, is in fact the reason why maybe it's not necessary or even a bad thing.
Simply, why is a courtier like her entitled to protection for refusing to ID self-serving lying apparatchiks demanding anonymity in order to bull$h!t us? Does that help a free press? I mean, can a paper or magazine or news show be journalisticly valid devoid of any leaks of lies from any anonymous government sources? Of course it can. Judy, for example, towards the end of her stint at the Times served the arguably valuable service of being a front-page @$$ kisser of the administration. But what's the necessity of that, the value to us? Beats me.
Website Counters
