your press isn't as controlled as in the US.
Re:Eh
Beatnik on 2004-02-04T16:02:08
So you're saying that other countries have free press because the government forces them to expose their sources? Au contraire.. Doctors, lawyers and priests also have confidential relationships with people they talk to. If a doctor has information on a criminal investigation, I'm sure he will not break that confidential relationship? How would reporters be any different? In a free country, people are entitled to an opinion of their own. If you don't like it when someone writes something about you, sue them (I believe the US also is one of those countries where people sue each other for looking oddly). On the security issue, yes.. reporters are just plain citizens. Just because they have a press card, doesn't mean they should get special clearance... But let us not forget a certain country where reporters join law enforcement officers and military personnel in their often risky day to day work.
In all fairness, the US isn't rated all THAT low, but it's still strange that country claiming to be the 'free world' still rates lower than one of those silly little countries:) Re:Eh
pudge on 2004-02-04T17:11:04
So you're saying that other countries have free press because the government forces them to expose their sources?
No, I am not saying anything of the sort, and I am not sure why you think I am. I am saying that many countries give press special treatment, and that I think that's a wrong thing to do (also, many other nations don't give the press special treatment, but either don't have laws requiring people to provide material evidence, or don't enforce them, which is often the case with the overburdened judicial systems in poorer countries).
I have a bachelor's degree in journalism, I'm not just spouting off about something I don't know about; I merely think that journalists are not special and not deserving of special rights.
Doctors, lawyers and priests also have confidential relationships with people they talk to. If a doctor has information on a criminal investigation, I'm sure he will not break that confidential relationship? How would reporters be any different?
Doctors, lawyers, and priests all have confidentiality for the purpose of accomplishing some other goal: a doctor/lawyer/priest needs to be able to treat your wounds/soul/case and must therefore have your trust; if you don't trust them, they can't do their job. But the purpose of a journalist's confidentiality agreement is the end in itself -- to report secret information without revealing the source -- and IMO not deserving of special legal protection.
In a free country, people are entitled to an opinion of their own. If you don't like it when someone writes something about you, sue them.
I am not sure what you're referring to. Opinions and defamation lawsuits have nothing to do with the issue at hand. What we are talking about here is when a journalist has a source that gives information about criminal activity, such that the journalist is required by law to give the information he has, so the government can prosecute the crime. For example, perhaps I interviewed an escaped murderer, and I know how to contact him, and I refuse to tell the police. They would put me in jail until I told them, and rightfully so.
Some states in the U.S. do have "shield laws" for journalists, so they are NOT required to reveal sources in criminal cases. It's been awhile since I've looked, and I am not sure which states, or how many there are.
In all fairness, the US isn't rated all THAT low, but it's still strange that country claiming to be the 'free world' still rates lower than one of those silly little countries:)
Only because the ratings include something as a "freedom" of the press that shouldn't be IMO. YMMV, but I thought I should at least explain it.:-)
Re:Eh
Beatnik on 2004-02-04T22:45:27
Note to myself: stop replying to posts during one of those hectic days at work.
