Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

  1. #1
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,614

    Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    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.
    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.
    "Oh no no no, you got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. -- Sheriff Chris Mannix

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    05-02-16 @ 02:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,809

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    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.

  3. #3
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,614

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Quote Originally Posted by 24107 View Post
    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.
    Which means that you've got to get confirmation of the information they provide. You know, journalism.
    "Oh no no no, you got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. -- Sheriff Chris Mannix

  4. #4
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    01-03-18 @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Quote Originally Posted by 24107 View Post
    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.
    Who are the sources for Reid's rants?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    05-02-16 @ 02:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,809

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Schumer was also leading the charge to strip Away American citizens gun rights, now he is doing this.

  6. #6
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    20,874

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    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...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    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.

    Heya Chez. 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~

  8. #8
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    43,987

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    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?
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    05-02-16 @ 02:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,809

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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?
    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.

  10. #10
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    20,874

    Re: Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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?
    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".
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •