Comments on: The News Media vs. the Innocent http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115 The blog of Commentary Magazine. Fri, 16 May 2008 08:08:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Richard Belzer http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116999 Richard Belzer Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:49:42 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116999 If a journalist has promised never to reveal a source's identity, then the journalist should never reveal the source's identity. Period. That does not excuse the journalist from $5,000 per day fines; indeed, it obligates the journalist to pay those fines unto bankruptcy, and to go to jail thereafter without complaint. A contract is a contract, and journalists ought to honor them. Those who breach contracts ought to be subject to civil liability like everyone else. It is a stain on the ethics (!) of the profession for journalists to believe they ought to be exempt from contracts into which they willingly enter, especially contracts they are responsible for devising in the first place. Why should the targets of their anonymous sources be drafted to serve as contract underwriters? If journalists think that's too high a price to pay, then they should not promise unlimited confidentiality. They could make less expansive promises, for example, such as commit to maintain confidentiality subject to a court order. The prospective source can then evaluate the likelihood of being discovered and make an informed decision whether to leak. And neither the leaker nor the journalist needs to violate their contract. What seems to be happening here is that journalists want to be able to enter into any contract with a source that pleases them, freely capture all of the upside risks of the contract, but then be allowed to skedaddle if downside risks materialize. They are like subprime mortgage borrowers. They want the profit on asset appreciation, but if the value of the house goes south they expect to be bailed out. If a journalist has promised never to reveal a source’s identity, then the journalist should never reveal the source’s identity. Period.

That does not excuse the journalist from $5,000 per day fines; indeed, it obligates the journalist to pay those fines unto bankruptcy, and to go to jail thereafter without complaint. A contract is a contract, and journalists ought to honor them. Those who breach contracts ought to be subject to civil liability like everyone else. It is a stain on the ethics (!) of the profession for journalists to believe they ought to be exempt from contracts into which they willingly enter, especially contracts they are responsible for devising in the first place. Why should the targets of their anonymous sources be drafted to serve as contract underwriters?

If journalists think that’s too high a price to pay, then they should not promise unlimited confidentiality. They could make less expansive promises, for example, such as commit to maintain confidentiality subject to a court order. The prospective source can then evaluate the likelihood of being discovered and make an informed decision whether to leak. And neither the leaker nor the journalist needs to violate their contract.

What seems to be happening here is that journalists want to be able to enter into any contract with a source that pleases them, freely capture all of the upside risks of the contract, but then be allowed to skedaddle if downside risks materialize. They are like subprime mortgage borrowers. They want the profit on asset appreciation, but if the value of the house goes south they expect to be bailed out.

]]> By: Rininger http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116500 Rininger Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:13:34 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116500 David, special protections shouldn't be awarded anybody--especially lawbreakers masquerading as journalists. David,

special protections shouldn’t be awarded anybody–especially lawbreakers masquerading as journalists.

]]> By: David Thomson http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116283 David Thomson Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:38:35 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116283 One does not need to indulge in postmodernist silliness to realize that journalism is an inherently nebulous concept. We could possibly delude ourselves during the era of the old media. Now the stuff has finally hit the fan because countless people post their opinions on the Internet. Setting up a free blog may take less than an hour. It is therefore utterly senseless for our courts and legislators to provide special protections to anyone claiming to be a journalist. One does not need to indulge in postmodernist silliness to realize that journalism is an inherently nebulous concept. We could possibly delude ourselves during the era of the old media. Now the stuff has finally hit the fan because countless people post their opinions on the Internet. Setting up a free blog may take less than an hour. It is therefore utterly senseless for our courts and legislators to provide special protections to anyone claiming to be a journalist.

]]> By: J.E. Dyer http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116060 J.E. Dyer Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:40:39 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/schoenfeld/3115#comment-116060 " 'It's important to remember here,' he told me, 'that these sources were not blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing but were allegedly doing something wrong in revealing the information about the identity of the suspect.' " Exactly. ” ‘It’s important to remember here,’ he told me, ‘that these sources were not blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing but were allegedly doing something wrong in revealing the information about the identity of the suspect.’ ”

Exactly.

]]>