Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2004, 03:33 PM   #1
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Default Journalists should reveal sources! Well, sometimes anyway

Originally Posted by CNN transcript of The Capital Gang
NOVAK: The -- Margaret, I believe -- I don't know of anybody who changed their opinion. "The Boston Globe" got a new expert who said the thing probably is authentic. In the same story, they went back to the expert that "The Washington Post" had used. He said it isn't authentic. I think it's going to be very interesting to find out if these are forged or phony documents. That's -- as a journalist, I think that's a very interesting story.

I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got these documents from. They didn't get them from a CIA agent. I don't believe there was any laws involved. I don't think we'll have a special prosecutor, if they tell. I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS. Why did CBS not go to the -- to Killian's family and get -- and ask them about it, as ABC did, and got these quotes, and they said they think they're phony documents -- I thought -- I thought that the "60 Minutes" thing by Dan Rather was a -- was a campaign operation, rather than an attempt to get to the bottom of the truth.

HUNT: Robert Novak, you're saying CBS should reveal its source?

NOVAK: Yes.

HUNT: You do? You think reports ought to reveal sources?

NOVAK: No, no. Wait a minute.

HUNT: I'm just asking.

NOVAK: I'm just saying in that case.

HUNT: Oh.
link to transcript

Why don't you take the high ground and lead by example Mr. Novak? We're waiting to find out about what happend in the White House as it pertains to Valerie Plame.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:17 PM   #2
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
What a fucking hypocrite that guy is lol
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | ∆sŲp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | ∆ŲlÔ
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:34 PM   #3
Lith Ahntalon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,193
Send a message via AIM to Lith Ahntalon Send a message via Yahoo to Lith Ahntalon
Just wanna know where the oversight is or perhaps even standards. If law enforcment pulled something of similar magnitude, they would have several state and probably federal agencies crawling up thier behinds right about now. I am not talking about just this incident but, the press in general (all press). I am not trying to accuse any particular media of anything either, I seriously want to know if there is any oversight or are standards to journalism where someone finally says "Hey, that is out of bounds, patently wrong and you will suffer X consequenses." I understand that the First Amendment most likely precludes any real oversight but, there have GOT to be some standards and consequenses to journalism somewhere. Dont' get me wrong, I understand fully about "sources," I call them "confidential informants" and giving them up is not good. That said I think Bernard Goldberg put it right last night on Hannity and Colmes when he said, don't give up the source but, give as much about the source as you can so we at least know where the source is coming from in veiwpoint.
__________________
Right mind, right action.

Last edited by Lith Ahntalon; 09-14-2004 at 06:26 PM.
Lith Ahntalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:18 PM   #4
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Originally Posted by Missouri Press Bar Commission
Journalist's "Privilege" to Shield Sources.

Common Law Concepts and Statutory Provisions.

Originally, the law did not grant reporters any privilege to withhold their sources of information in a court of law. Courts had the right to obtain any evidence in the interest of ascertaining truth; hence, reporters enjoyed little or no right to protect their sources, notes, photographs or tapes.


Thirty-one states now have "shield" laws which mandate such protection. Missouri has no such statutory privilege.

States recognizing a common-law privilege include Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The First Amendment.
-----------------------
In 1958, columnist Marie Torre took a different approach by advancing the then-novel proposition that a reporterís sources were protected by the First Amendment freedom of the press provisions. Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2nd Cir.), cert. Denied, 358 U.S. 910 (1958).


Torre ultimately was jailed for criminal contempt for refusing to name her sources for a statement that precipitated a million-dollar libel suit.

The Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, however, despite acknowledging some constitutional implications, held that even if the First Amendment were to provide some protection, the reporter must testify when the information sought goes to the heart of the plaintiffís claim.


Grand Jury Testimony.
-----------------------
The first Supreme Court case to consider whether the First Amendment supports a reporterís privilege was Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). The Court said:

At common law, the great weight of authority is that reporters are not exempt from grand jury testimony, and courts consistently refuse to recognize a reporterís privilege to refuse to reveal confidential information to a grand jury.

The Fifth Amendment mandates grand jury proceedings for the institution of federal criminal prosecution. The public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is sufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering claimed by the reporters.

It is not suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press would be eviscerated. Official harassment of the press undertaken to disrupt a reporterís relationship with his news sources and not for purposes of law enforcement have no justification.

Testimony by a reporter before a grand jury involves no intrusion upon speech or assembly, no prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, and no express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold.

Justice Powell wrote a concurring opinion to emphasize the limited nature of the courtís holding:

State and federal authorities are not free to annex the news media as an investigative arm of the government.

If the information sought bears only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, or if such testimony will implicate confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, then a reporter may seek to quash the subpoena.

The court should judge such cases on a case-by-case basis by striking a balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct.
NEWS REPORTER'S HANDBOOK ON LAW AND COURTS
The Missouri Press-Bar Commission
(Last Update: 2001)
link

Looks like there's some leeway in how far the protection of sources is protected under the first amendment. Not unreasonable. If sources don't have protection, they won't speak out thus limiting the flow of information. I can see the need however in certain very extreme situations for a source to to be revealed. Hopefully those situations are minimal and can be done in such a way as to not jeopardize the source or informant.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:28 PM   #5
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
I agree Vireil, a reporter shouldnt have to reveal their sources but they DO have to prove their story is true and not with forged documents. Forging documents kills your story no matter how 'true' if might really be.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:32 PM   #6
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
I agree Vireil, a reporter shouldnt have to reveal their sources but they DO have to prove their story is true and not with forged documents. Forging documents kills your story no matter how 'true' if might really be.
That same superscript "th" appeared in papers that the White House released of Bush's records. Kinda blows your theories and hope Chuk.
And as far as publishing truthful things- the stuff on Kerry was proven wrong. Nothing has proven Bush did his service.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:36 PM   #7
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
A superscript rises above the other letters hence the name super script. That tech was never available on a typewriter in the early 70s or in that font. It came from Word and has been proven without a shadow of a doubt. Even your bible the Spew York Times says its a FAKE. Get over it.

Kerry was never in Cambodia he was proven a liar
Kerry by his own admission got his first purple heart by a self inflicted wound
Kerry lied about his story of saving Rassman, he said he was there to save Rassman while the other 3 boats fled, the real story is Rassman fell overboard when one of the boats hit a mine, kerry got scared and fled the scene while the other 3 boats STAYED.

Your guy lied, and has been proven as such.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)

Last edited by chukzombi; 09-14-2004 at 08:46 PM. Reason: arrgh typos!!
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:43 PM   #8
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
The documents CBS is using have not been proven to be forgeries. This is not to say that there are not legitimate questions about their authenticity. Time will tell. Anyway, this thread is designed to point out Novak's hypocrisy. I guess it was funnier during the broadcast segment than it is in text.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:44 PM   #9
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
O'Neal stated he was in Cambodia to Nixon and it is on tape. But to falsify his current lie he changed his story.
Self-inflicted wounds are common. Bob Dole got his from a self-inflicted wound. I don't care how anyone got their wounds the fact is they got it in combat and that matters.
As far as the Rassman story- everything- that is EVERYTHING shows that the idiots lieing about it now had no way of knowing what occurred on this boat as they were themselves under fire or were never there. The captain of the other swiftboat who made this claim was actually overboard himself at the time the firing went on and he received his medals for being under fire. In fact, the swifties claim that Kerry wrote all of everyone's medal recommendations, which is pretty near impossible. The records as well as all of his boatmates except the guy that got reprimanded from Kerry shows Kerry's story to be true. In fact the swifties were proven time and again to have lied. Not just simply twisted the truth but lied. And you talk about Black Helicopters.
So Chuk you go on believing what you WANT TO. Beleiving what you want doesn't make it true. Look at the evidence. Oh yeah I forgot you don't believe evidence is truth.
As it is in Iraq, WMD, and everything about your false version of reality you are living in a fairy tale land. You are delusional Chuk.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:48 PM   #10
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
No idiot, you have no concept of what happened or how Kerry lied. why dont you go back to democraticundergorund.com and receive more of your talking points.
you lose this one.

but then again you lose every one
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 06:38 AM   #11
Ebino
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by bumbleroot
That same superscript "th" appeared in papers that the White House released of Bush's records. Kinda blows your theories and hope Chuk.
Ummm, no.

http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm <--- More information about typesetting than you'll ever want to know, including why the superscript was not generated on a typewriter in 1972. Enjoy.

Originally Posted by bumbleroot
Look at the evidence. Oh yeah I forgot you don't believe evidence is truth.
Back it up, bumble. Let's see you meet your own demands.
Ebino is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.