The Sideshow November 2005 Archive: "What are reporters for?
Looking at WaPo Ombud Deborah Howell's piece on anonymous sourcing, I have to wonder whether this is some special spin cooked up to paint over what's going on, or do the leading voices at one of the leading newspapers really not understand what's wrong with the fact that more and more, the paper looks like a gossip column rather than, well, a serious newspaper.
The thought of reporters testifying as prosecution witnesses in the Libby case frightened many at the conference. Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and former reporter who is executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said, 'The public must have access to truth as much as possible, but reporters can't become agents of government prosecutions or civil litigants.' Most participants felt there should be a federal law to shield reporters from having to identify their sources; most states have laws offering some protection.
We've already noticed that Ms. Dalglish and her organization seem to be in thrall to the conservative spin machine, but let's face it, this statement is laughable in light of current events. Let's look at that again:
'The public must have access to truth as much as possible, but reporters can't become agents of government prosecutions or civil litigants.'
No, instead they should be agents of government criminality, eh?"
No comments:
Post a Comment