Another good example of the dishonest coverage of the Shield Law/Reporter Confidentiality issue from Newsweek/MSNBC: Whistle-Blower Crackdown Spreads
Built into the title of the piece is also my problem with it. The article talks about two cases, one allegedly involving the leaking of the name of a CIA operative, and the other allegedly involving leaks used to defame a former government employee. In both of these cases the supposed informant was not "whistle blowing" in the sense of pointing out malfeasance of any sort. In both cases it is the act of leaking itself that is the crime alleged. In both cases reporters are there at the moment the alleged crime is committed, in the CIA case illegally outing an operative, in the other case the dissemination of slander. Knowledge of a crime is not incidental in these cases but integral. If the "informants" of these cases are guilty of the charges then they are not "whistle-blowers" at all, they are criminals (or just civilly liable as the case may be.)
I can understand the need for reporters to protect souces that would be vulnerable to retaliation from superiors on the job or in the Government. Also, I can understand reporters might believe that any "retreat" on these cases might endanger real whistle-blowers in the future. But the slippery slope argument is always one of the weakest, and I don't see why, just because you call yourself a reporter, you should have the special right to ignore crimes that happen right in front of your face.
I wish reporters would get off of the slippery slope and debate each case on its individual merits. They are much less likely to lose something valuable that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment