toniagoertz@yahoo.com
Re: [LEAKGATE] Keller, Abrams React to Miller Jailing
Sun Jul 10, 2005 14:14
64.140.158.80
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LEAKGATE] Keller, Abrams React to Miller Jailing
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:53:02 -0000
From: toniagoertz toniagoertz@yahoo.com
To: apfn@apfn.org
Food for thought from the other side of the fence on this one.
As a journalism student- we are taught that the use of unnamed
sources is something to be done at one's own peril. Promising that
you will NOT reveal a sources name is something akin to a blood oath
especially if as in this case you wind up with your own biscuits a
burning.
As one who has ZERO love for Mrs. Judith Miller, I do have to
applaud her choice to stand by her promise of anonimity and her
refusal to name names.
WHY?? For the simple reason that there are people within our
government that would tell the public vital information, people that
may speek to a reporter on what we would call "deep background" who
may provide links to others with the ability to talk more freely
about an issue- not to be obvious, but think about Watergate, or the
Iran Contra scandle- both of those started because of an unnamed
source and a curious journalist who took the information and ran
with it.
Sadly- in the world of corperate media, those who would tell the
truth to the public, versus playing along with the spin from either
side are in the minority, and the reason that they are is because
what used to be a matter of staunch ethical conviction- you NEVER
reveal your confidential source- has become a crap shoot- because
the reporter has to brief their editor, and while the reporter can
decline to name names keeping their promise to the source- the
editor may do it for them if enough pressure is applied.
What does this mean for "WE THE PEOPLE?" Simple- if reporters are
forced to spill their guts on who said what, even when confidential
sources are involved, the confidential sources dry up and we will
only hear the "official line."
Personally, I was surprised at the "outting" in the first place, and
didn't think ethical journalism would stoop that low, however in
trying to "fix" the problem, I see an even larger one looming- one
that alows more of this to happen behind closed doors without the
scrutiny of the public because really, how many here would go to
jail indefinitly to protect the identity of someone that could loose
their job for what they have told you in confidence?
While I personally think the entire matter is something of a crock,
and that the journalists involved are being asked to do something
that goes against so much of what we are told journalism is, I would
suppose that it really is no more than they deserve, they promised
to keep their sources annonomous- and now have the choice of keeping
that promise or going to jail- I just wonder- if they do, and are
forced to tell- what this will mean for the public as a whole- how
many within city or state government will be willing to stand up and
say that something isn't right when they know that they will be
confidential only as long as the journalist they talk to is willing
to go to jail to protect them, and we all know how far that will go.
I just find this all ultimatly saddening, because while 2 wrongs
don't make a right, asking the press to reveal their sources is
something akin to asking them to commit harri karri.
I hope that someone wakes up soon, tonia
===================
AN INTERESTING RADIO PROGRAM:
7/7/ LONDON BOMBING.... A BLACK OP!
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/shows/webcast/_JULY_A/_cloak_Ven_7_9_05.mp3
Subject: Re: [LEAKGATE] Keller, Abrams React to Miller Jailing
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:53:02 -0000
From: toniagoertz toniagoertz@yahoo.com
To: apfn@apfn.org
Food for thought from the other side of the fence on this one.
As a journalism student- we are taught that the use of unnamed
sources is something to be done at one's own peril. Promising that
you will NOT reveal a sources name is something akin to a blood oath
especially if as in this case you wind up with your own biscuits a
burning.
As one who has ZERO love for Mrs. Judith Miller, I do have to
applaud her choice to stand by her promise of anonimity and her
refusal to name names.
WHY?? For the simple reason that there are people within our
government that would tell the public vital information, people that
may speek to a reporter on what we would call "deep background" who
may provide links to others with the ability to talk more freely
about an issue- not to be obvious, but think about Watergate, or the
Iran Contra scandle- both of those started because of an unnamed
source and a curious journalist who took the information and ran
with it.
Sadly- in the world of corperate media, those who would tell the
truth to the public, versus playing along with the spin from either
side are in the minority, and the reason that they are is because
what used to be a matter of staunch ethical conviction- you NEVER
reveal your confidential source- has become a crap shoot- because
the reporter has to brief their editor, and while the reporter can
decline to name names keeping their promise to the source- the
editor may do it for them if enough pressure is applied.
What does this mean for "WE THE PEOPLE?" Simple- if reporters are
forced to spill their guts on who said what, even when confidential
sources are involved, the confidential sources dry up and we will
only hear the "official line."
Personally, I was surprised at the "outting" in the first place, and
didn't think ethical journalism would stoop that low, however in
trying to "fix" the problem, I see an even larger one looming- one
that alows more of this to happen behind closed doors without the
scrutiny of the public because really, how many here would go to
jail indefinitly to protect the identity of someone that could loose
their job for what they have told you in confidence?
While I personally think the entire matter is something of a crock,
and that the journalists involved are being asked to do something
that goes against so much of what we are told journalism is, I would
suppose that it really is no more than they deserve, they promised
to keep their sources annonomous- and now have the choice of keeping
that promise or going to jail- I just wonder- if they do, and are
forced to tell- what this will mean for the public as a whole- how
many within city or state government will be willing to stand up and
say that something isn't right when they know that they will be
confidential only as long as the journalist they talk to is willing
to go to jail to protect them, and we all know how far that will go.
I just find this all ultimatly saddening, because while 2 wrongs
don't make a right, asking the press to reveal their sources is
something akin to asking them to commit harri karri.
I hope that someone wakes up soon, tonia
===================
AN INTERESTING RADIO PROGRAM:
7/7/ LONDON BOMBING.... A BLACK OP!
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/shows/webcast/_JULY_A/_cloak_Ven_7_9_05.mp3
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
