• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A supporter of a bill to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal confidential sources said Friday the measure has the backing of the Obama administration and the support of enough senators to move ahead this year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, spoke optimistically about prospects for the measure, identifying five Republicans who would join with Democrats and independents on a bill that he said would address a constitutional oversight.

While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, "there is no first amendment right for gathering information," Schumer said at The New York Times' Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security.
Click to expand...

News from The Associated Press


This is bad people. They're defining who is the Press which will lead to who can be in the Press. Which is controlling the Press.
 
Not revealing who your sources are is dishonest journalism. It means you just have to take their word, even though they might not be telling the truth.
 
24107 said:
Not revealing who your sources are is dishonest journalism. It means you just have to take their word, even though they might not be telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Which means that you've got to get confirmation of the information they provide. You know, journalism.
 
24107 said:
Not revealing who your sources are is dishonest journalism. It means you just have to take their word, even though they might not be telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Who are the sources for Reid's rants?
 
Schumer was also leading the charge to strip Away American citizens gun rights, now he is doing this.
 
That's weird.
I had always thought that the freedom of the press meant freedom to gather information, at least without violating other laws.
Apparently not according to this Schumer guy.

And I strongly question any measure that in any way defines who and/or what constitutes "press". It seems like a short step from there would be applying further limits to "non press" individuals.

From the sounds of things, this would not cover a completely new amateur journalist who sent out his/her findings over twitter or some such. OR at least whether the protections applied would be at the discretion of the court.

In a perfect world, who was/is a journalist would be self-determined. But in this world I suppose that has it's drawbacks...
 
ChezC3 said:
News from The Associated Press


This is bad people. They're defining who is the Press which will lead to who can be in the Press. Which is controlling the Press.
Click to expand...


Heya Chez. :2wave: Do you think the House will pass it?



It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist" who would be granted the privileges of the law.

The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast ... or motion picture for public showing."

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

The overall bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege to journalists.

The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Such orders would be limited, if possible, "in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information."

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill last September on a 13-5 vote. Schumer said the measure has the support of Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He also noted the backing of Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch in the committee.

Last month, the Justice Department announced it was revising its rules for obtaining records from the news media in leak investigations, promising that in most instances, the government will notify news organizations beforehand of its intention to do so.

The revised procedures are designed to give news organizations an opportunity to challenge any subpoenas or search warrants in federal court.....snip~
 
I'm not sure I understand this one.
The bill will say that reporters don't have to name their sources, not that they can't name their sources.

So, if a reporter has a confidential source that doesn't want to be named, that source doesn't have to be named.
But, if the reporter wants to add some credibility to the story, the source may be named. The decision, then rests with the source and the reporter.

So, how is that a bad thing again?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure I understand this one.
The bill will say that reporters don't have to name their sources, not that they can't name their sources.

So, if a reporter has a confidential source that doesn't want to be named, that source doesn't have to be named.
But, if the reporter wants to add some credibility to the story, the source may be named. The decision, then rests with the source and the reporter.

So, how is that a bad thing again?
Click to expand...
Because it is not reliable/accurate reporting and it is also not fair to the public reading or viewing inaccurate content. only a ditto head would not see how this wrong. :lol:
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure I understand this one.
The bill will say that reporters don't have to name their sources, not that they can't name their sources.

So, if a reporter has a confidential source that doesn't want to be named, that source doesn't have to be named.
But, if the reporter wants to add some credibility to the story, the source may be named. The decision, then rests with the source and the reporter.

So, how is that a bad thing again?
Click to expand...
My main issue is that the bill defines who/what a reporter is.

That kind of thing is all well and good for security of a person or place, but when you start codifying it into law, it opens up the possibility of further restrictions on those deemed by the law to not be a reporter.

For example twitter is apparently not an accepted media for transmitting a report, and thus if you are an amateur and report something on twitter whether it is protected under this law is apparently up to the court (unsure)

Granted I don't use twitter myself, but it would seem to me that it could be used to report on some event.

Also assuming the article is accurate, the law does not provide much protection for amateur reporters, beyond "judge can decide".
 
The Mark said:
My main issue is that the bill defines who/what a reporter is.

That kind of thing is all well and good for security of a person or place, but when you start codifying it into law, it opens up the possibility of further restrictions on those deemed by the law to not be a reporter.

For example twitter is apparently not an accepted media for transmitting a report, and thus if you are an amateur and report something on twitter whether it is protected under this law is apparently up to the court (unsure)

Granted I don't use twitter myself, but it would seem to me that it could be used to report on some event.

Also assuming the article is accurate, the law does not provide much protection for amateur reporters, beyond "judge can decide".
Click to expand...

Hmm.. so, if I post something on DP, the government can make me name my source?
 
24107 said:
Because it is not reliable/accurate reporting and it is also not fair to the public reading or viewing inaccurate content. only a ditto head would not see how this wrong. :lol:
Click to expand...

If the reporter is worried about not being credible, he has the option of naming sources, but the government can't make him name his sources.

One would think that a story using "unnamed sources" would lack credibility, but we read such things on the internet all the time, and people do take them seriously.

If, that is, the story supports the reader's biases.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Hmm.. so, if I post something on DP, the government can make me name my source?
Click to expand...
From the article, it sounds like they could.

Assuming they wanted to, the journalistic work was yours, you had not published it in an accepted format, and the judge sided with them.

Unless I'm misreading the AP's report on the bill.
 
The Mark said:
From the article, it sounds like they could.

Assuming they wanted to, the journalistic work was yours, you had not published it in an accepted format, and the judge sided with them.

Unless I'm misreading the AP's report on the bill.
Click to expand...

That could be a problem.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Hmm.. so, if I post something on DP, the government can make me name my source?
Click to expand...

Sure, with a court order. That's nothing new. This bill would provide some protection against that.

Like others have said, I don't like the defining what is or isn't a journalist so much. But it's not like we don't already do that. We don't apply the protections of freedom of the press to every single person merely on their declaration of themselves as acting in a journalistic capacity. Maybe we should, but I don't think this would really alter who does or doesn't enjoy that protection. I actually think we should define who is or isn't the press, but we should do it much more broadly. I think the act of obtaining information to disseminate it to the public, with the intent of informing the public, is basically enough. Whether you're on TV or just on a blog, you're acting in a journalistic capacity, and we should protect that.
 
MMC said:
Heya Chez. :2wave: Do you think the House will pass it?



It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist" who would be granted the privileges of the law.

The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast ... or motion picture for public showing."

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

The overall bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege to journalists.

The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Such orders would be limited, if possible, "in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information."

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill last September on a 13-5 vote. Schumer said the measure has the support of Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He also noted the backing of Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch in the committee.

Last month, the Justice Department announced it was revising its rules for obtaining records from the news media in leak investigations, promising that in most instances, the government will notify news organizations beforehand of its intention to do so.

The revised procedures are designed to give news organizations an opportunity to challenge any subpoenas or search warrants in federal court.....snip~
Click to expand...


I really don't know any more.

My main concern is in the government deciding whom they'll recognize as legitimate. Outside an armed populous, freedom of the press is the most important aspect of a free society. The Press is there to police the government, the government shouldn't be policing the press, not if we hope to keep up the slightest appearance of this charade that is our freedom.
 
ChezC3 said:
I really don't know any more.

My main concern is in the government deciding whom they'll recognize as legitimate. Outside an armed populous, freedom of the press is the most important aspect of a free society. The Press is there to police the government, the government shouldn't be policing the press, not if we hope to keep up the slightest appearance of this charade that is our freedom.
Click to expand...


Well....I highlighted those Republicans that Schumer says he has. I am surprised Grassley is on that list.
 
The Mark said:
That's weird.
I had always thought that the freedom of the press meant freedom to gather information, at least without violating other laws.
Apparently not according to this Schumer guy.

And I strongly question any measure that in any way defines who and/or what constitutes "press". It seems like a short step from there would be applying further limits to "non press" individuals.

From the sounds of things, this would not cover a completely new amateur journalist who sent out his/her findings over twitter or some such. OR at least whether the protections applied would be at the discretion of the court.

In a perfect world, who was/is a journalist would be self-determined. But in this world I suppose that has it's drawbacks...
Click to expand...

there have been journalist jailed and fined for refusing to turn over their sources.
confidential sources happen all the time in police and FBI and those informants are not turned over.
 
MMC said:
Well....I highlighted those Republicans that Schumer says he has. I am surprised Grassley is on that list.
Click to expand...
Me thinks all who have their name attached to this bill need to be investigated by every reporter on earth.
 
With this bill, I can see and feel the grip of tyranny around this country's throat. This bill must be defeated and the members of congress who support it, shamed and embarrassed publicly.
 
ChezC3 said:
Me thinks all who have their name attached to this bill need to be investigated by every reporter on earth.
Click to expand...

Mornin' Chez. :2wave: Well I would like to see how they worded that part out in most instances that the government will notify the news agency before hand.

If they leave that vague.....then the Politicians on both sides of the aisle in whatever Administration can just use the good OLD.....Its a Matter of National Security. To use as the lame excuse to not contact whom may be covering whatever it is the government is doing.

I think some of this is good for Reporters. But you are Right......the Media is suppose to be the watchdog over the Government. If they can't do the job.....then get those that will.

Which dealing with those in the media and getting them Right.....is a different sort of Problem. Although.....one that we the people can take to the Media people. Full- tilt, to get that point across to them.
 
MMC said:
Mornin' Chez. :2wave: Well I would like to see how they worded that part out in most instances that the government will notify the news agency before hand.

If they leave that vague.....then the Politicians on both sides of the aisle in whatever Administration can just use the good OLD.....Its a Matter of National Security. To use as the lame excuse to not contact whom may be covering whatever it is the government is doing.

I think some of this is good for Reporters. But you are Right......the Media is suppose to be the watchdog over the Government. If they can't do the job.....then get those that will.

Which dealing with those in the media and getting them Right.....is a different sort of Problem. Although.....one that we the people can take to the Media people. Full- tilt, to get that point across to them.
Click to expand...

My cynical side is dominating right now my man, I don't see the people doing a god damn thing...

The only thing that has stopped these bastards from taking our guns I believe is there is still a tinge of fear in their hearts we'd use them...otherwise...adiós muchacho..
 
24107 said:
Because it is not reliable/accurate reporting and it is also not fair to the public reading or viewing inaccurate content. only a ditto head would not see how this wrong. :lol:
Click to expand...

An anonymous source brought down the Nixon Administration.
 
ChezC3 said:
My cynical side is dominating right now my man, I don't see the people doing a god damn thing...

The only thing that has stopped these bastards from taking our guns I believe is there is still a tinge of fear in their hearts we'd use them...otherwise...adiós muchacho..
Click to expand...


Well, there are those out there doing what they can with media types. But you know how it is in a PC world and all crying out for the Law. Courts, Free Speech and all of it in play. Still.....when none listen and none can do anything about it thru legal means, and thru government. That leaves the people to make the decision.

Which in the end.....there is no more listening to talk. As there is nothing to talk about. Action will be what does the talking then.

Btw, they said they don't Consider Twitter and so then now they would have to re-address that issue.



Read more: McCain: 'A little embarrassed' by GOP attitude on Ukraine and IMF - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter .....snip~


Now all MS Media sources are using Twitter.....yet these Politicians know this, huh?
 
Ockham said:
With this bill, I can see and feel the grip of tyranny around this country's throat. This bill must be defeated and the members of congress who support it, shamed and embarrassed publicly.
Click to expand...

A bill has no power, not even a poorly concieved law has much life...

I doubt news media will act complacently if this bill passes. Lawyers are at this moment designing actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom