1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Balco leak uncovered

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by pressboxer, Dec 21, 2006.

Page 3 of 19
  1. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Ah, that short post gave you a loophole.

    But as I've said time and time and time again, the regulation should come from within the industry. It refuses to do so.

    Until that changes, there should be no new shield laws.
     
    DyePack, Dec 22, 2006
    #25
  2. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    Dyepack - If you hate this industry so much, and have such a degree of contempt for those involved in it, why do you frequent here?
     
    Pringle, Dec 22, 2006
    #26
  3. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    To tell you that you suck.
     
    DyePack, Dec 22, 2006
    #27
  4. Mmmm_Donuts

    Mmmm_Donuts Member

    I think we can officially stop asking the question about whether Yahoo Sports is a "serious" news source. As much as I hate to admit it, Yahoooooooooooo! (ugh) has proven itself.

    Name one other sports site or newspaper in the country that has broken three stories in the last six months that were bigger than Reggie Bush, the instant replay screw-ups and the Balco leak. Has anyone taken stock of the roster of writers lately? Tim Brown (LA Times), Jeff Passan (KC Star), Charles Robinson (Orlando Sentinel), Jason Cole (Miami Herald), Dan Wetzel (Sportsline), Adrian Wojnarowski (Bergen Record) and Josh Peter (New Orleans Times Pic).

    Other than maybe ESPN.com's underutilized blob of talent, that's probably as good a top 7 as anyone in the country.
     
    Mmmm_Donuts, Dec 22, 2006
    #28
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm all for reputable sources of news voluntarily adopting good standards for news gathering. And I'd have that discussion with anyone here.

    But you can't force regulation on something that is a basic right spelled out in the Constitution. Let's say you have your way. So the "industry" (and who exactly comprises the "free press" industry?) somehow decides to regulate itself. First of all, who's standards for good journalism get adopted? Dyepack's? There's a scary thought. And what if the Ragu Free Press decides it doesn't want to be a part of your club? Can I go to jail for publishing without a license? I wouldn't even need a lawyer to argue that one. The First Amendment says I can disseminate anything I want. A free press means that anyone with a pen or a printing press or a photo copier or a video camera or a web server can publish freely. It's not just a basic right; it's actually vital to the workings of a democracy. So anyone who doesn't want what they publish to come under forced regulation--and that would be most people not named Dyepack--is perfectly within his or her right to say "go away," when you come to them with their regulations. Don't libel or slander anyone and you have complete freedom. It's a constitutionally protected right. It's not "freedom of the press, as long as you meet Dyepack's (or anyone else's) standard for what is acceptable."

    Even if you can reconcile that and get your way, and there are shield laws that are contingent on government approval of some sort of industry regulation, that is the same as direct government regulation. "Oh, we'll give you a shield law, but only if you stifle yourself in a way that we approve of." And that isn't some tangential violation of the constitution. Freedom of the press is smack dab at the beginning of the bill of rights.

    This industry doesn't need regulation. The marketplace is its regulator. If you have something to offer, people will buy it. If you sell yourself as a serious source of news, and you prove yourself to be reliable over and over again, people will buy. If you're not reliable, they won't. If you sell yourself as a source of entertainment and you deliver, people will buy. If not, they won't. It's simple.

    In any case, all anyone has to do is go back and read your posts on this thread to see what you're about: just a disagreeable person who scoffs at everyone else. I say it isn't right that Fainaru-Wada and Williams are facing jail for staying true to a principle that I believe makes our democracy stronger, and you chime in with a sarcastic remark about them being criminals. And from there you scoff at others and go off on some crackpot tangent about the free press needing to be regulated, and when people don't agree with that lunacy, you say they all "suck." Just you being you, I guess.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 22, 2006
    #29
  6. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Some standards would be better than no standards, which is what we have now.

    Any government debate about a shield law is going to include that topic. Someone is going to want to know who's being protected and why.
     
    DyePack, Dec 22, 2006
    #30
  7. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand, because we can't keep dyepack away from finishing that book, can we?
    I'd say, if this story is true, the defense lawyer's going to be having an up-close-and-personal chat with the ethics committee of his local bar association very soon.
    And I'll wait to see the full FBI investigation before letting the prosecutors off the hook, BTW.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 22, 2006
    #31
  8. Deskgrunt50

    Deskgrunt50 Well-Known Member

    Outstanding post. Right on the money.

    There will never be a perfect system. But reporters must be able to protect their sources (without going to jail) if there is going to be any meaningful reporting on important issues.

    Yeah, this is case is "just steroids in baseball." But the slippery slope starts here, and it's a scary thought as to what might happen if we slide.
     
    Deskgrunt50, Dec 23, 2006
    #32
  9. henryhenry

    henryhenry Member

    big ragu's post is eloquent, to be sure
    but the thing about letting "the market" regulate bothers me - the market is darwinian and often manipulated - as we saw during the dot.com bubble - and it took someone like eliott spitzer to go after the crooks (investment bankers) who sucked billions out of the pockets of small investors, including me

    big ragu's thoughts are essentially libertarian - keep the government out of our lives - but that simply allows the strong to prey on the weak - and the big media interests will prey on the small, i.e., the murdochs will have their way

    i guess i'm tending toward some regulation, but with careful and enlightened checks and balances
     
    henryhenry, Dec 23, 2006
    #33
  10. awriter

    awriter Active Member

    Isn't that what libel laws are?
     
    awriter, Dec 24, 2006
    #34
  11. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Because to be truly miserable, you need an outlet to ruin life for others.. hence, the little cross we all bear --- our boy fudgepack...
     
    slappy4428, Dec 24, 2006
    #35
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    He's on the second day of Kool-Aid now.
     
    DyePack, Dec 24, 2006
    #36
Page 3 of 19
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page