There are a couple of things I’m passionate about. Branzburg v. Hayes is one of them. I first became familiar with this case through an editorial by Floyd J. McKay in the Seattle Times on May 8, 2005 and now this case is something like gospel to me. All journalists, hardcopy or netnews journalists should, in my opinion, become thoroughly familiar with Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
Here is the passage that gets my guts churned up:
There remain those situations where a source is not engaged in criminal conduct but has information suggesting illegal conduct by others. Newsmen frequently receive information from such sources pursuant to a tacit or express agreement to withhold the source’s name and suppress any information that the source wishes not published. Such informants presumably desire anonymity in order to avoid being entangled as a witness in a criminal trial or grand jury investigation. They may fear that disclosure will threaten their job security or personal safety or that it will simply result in dishonor or embarrassment. Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
There’s more:
Keeping the Government Out of the Newsroom
A First Amendment Imperative?
By Jane E. Kirtley
The relationship between the press and the government has always been an uneasy one. The framers of the Bill of Rights recognized this tension. That’s why we have a First Amendment: to guarantee the media’s independence by keeping the government out of the newsroom. But what does the First Amendment really do? We know it forbids Congress to make laws “abridging” press freedom. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that statutes may neither single out the news media for special punishment, nor impose unique duties on them. On the other hand, laws that apply to anyone can usually be enforced against the press with impunity, unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the exercise of First Ammendment rights.
Most journalists would say that the most significant threats to their independence occur when the government attempts to use them as its investigators, eroding a line that should be fixed and immutable. Reporters cultivate a variety of sources, many of whom are reluctant to speak directly to the authorities for any number of reasons. Government employees may wish to reveal wrongdoing, but anticipate retaliation or worse if they do so through internal channels. Individuals with information about criminal activity may harbor legitimate fears about their own safety or liberty if they “go public” with it((Source: Keeping the Government Out of the Newsroom)
BRANZBURG V. HAYES IN THE NEWS:
Divulge Sources, 4 More Reporters Told
New York Sun
NY – Jun 29, 2005(This article is loaded with trouble.)
‘Ms. Dalglish conceded that the proposed reporters’ privilege law is troubling because it requires someone in government to determine who is and isn’t acting as a journalist, but she said those concerns must now take a backseat. “Does it make me nervous to have Congress making those decisions? Yeah, it does. But it makes me more nervous to have a bunch of journalists going to jail,’ she said.”
Why I believe this case is vitally important:
On June 30, 2005 Congressman Conyers and 51 other members of Congress filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for Downing Street Memo documents from the US government. Since the 29th of May the people of the United States have depended entirely on news reports from the UK about this story. The only investigative journalism that has been done on this story has been net news. (Christian Science Monitor almost made it, and the Washington Post almost did, too, but these papers are playing catch-up with the UK news, net news bloggers… with RAWSTORY in the lead.)
What we are looking for, and what we have been waiting for is a break in the story on the US side. It has not come. The protections are just not there for any journalist to report criminality in government at the level we are looking at… the entire Bush administration… and every branch of government is involved in the illegal war in Iraq… Congress, too, I’m sorry to say.
On this score, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any journalist to risk his/her job for a story like this. He/she will lose his/her job, his/her place in the pecking order, or his/her mind. What we can expect is that with brave souls like Congressman Conyers in the lead, we can form a second rank of citizens, and include citizen journalists in that rank. But first we need the whistleblowers. Here are some:
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition
Government Accountability Project
Who Is Minding The Shop?
THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
It is now 129 days since the first of the Downing Street documents was leaked to the UK press. In all that time not one scrap of evidence has surfaced from the US side. I think this makes quite clear why Congressman Conyers and 51 other members of Congress have submitted an FOIA request for US documents.
If you know of any morewhistleblowers, or any protections for journalists working on the US side of the DSM story, please contact me. Thanks.
