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!

Federal shield law is practically here...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dave Kindred, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    I lift a glass to the Chronicle guys, Fainaru-Wada and Williams, who did what they needed to do and did it without the protection this bill will give us from now on...

  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    The telling part of the story:

    President Bush threatened to veto the bill, saying the protections it would afford "could severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the federal government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security."
  3. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Here's hoping that if it becomes law, we use it wisely.
  4. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    Doc, from the news story, I think this is the answer to the national-security argument....

    "The bill would protect news reporters, under most circumstances, from being legally compelled to reveal sources who have requested confidentiality. The protections would apply only to people who earn a significant portion of their livelihoods as journalists. They would not apply in criminal investigations or prosecutions of leaks of classified information that significantly harm national security, unless a judge ruled that the public interest outweighs those concerns."
  5. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    I'm just amazed Bush knows what eviscerate means. And I agree with you, Dave, but I still could see Bush using this as an excuse to veto.
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Whoever reminded Shrub he had veto power six years into his term should be summarily hog tied and horse whipped.
  7. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    Yeah, and we still have the Senate to vote on it....though the House vote would seem to demand similar approval over there....and then? wouldn't it be great fun of a sadistic kind to see the lamest of ducks try to sustain his veto of a bill that was passed 12-1 in the House?
  8. Judy Miller, Scooter Libby, and I all look forward to the passage of the Complicity In Dirty Tricks And Runaway Prosecutions Protection Act of 2007.
  9. My impression was Bush would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
    My boss is penning his Sunday column on the subject, and taking Bush to task for his threat.
  10. Mighty_Wingman

    Mighty_Wingman Active Member

    Because if there's one thing there's not enough of, it's leaks in Washington. The wall of silence must come down!
  11. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Usually you have to be under indictment, or bent double under the weight of your own shame, but we'll grandfather you in if you like.
  12. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    This is a bad law. Journalists shouldn't have protections that normal American's don't have. It is just giving more power to the chattering class and corporate media.

    Also, who is eligible for this law? Bloggers, freelancers? Or only professional journalists? You can not set up a separate class.

    I know we like to think that it will only be used nobly, but there will be uses to this law that will make your skin crawl. Journalists rights derive from the first amendment. It didn't protect consequences of free speech for a reason.

    This is actually chipping away at the notion that journalists are independent. Now, with this new classification, we are on our way to an established professional class. That's worse than compelled testimony, and bad for the public in the long run.

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page