tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post109227719266253596..comments2023-11-06T01:56:43.668+14:00Comments on Sandcastles and Cubicles: I do not understandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1092666990325342442004-08-17T04:36:00.000+14:002004-08-17T04:36:00.000+14:00"In this case, I'd say that they should out their ..."In this case, I'd say that they should out their source, as it appears that the reason they're not doing so is because they are partisan hacks, not principled journalists, and because its a matter of national security."<br /><br />Well, i don't know why they are with holding thier sources, but i am leaning toward this one also.<br /><br />But wouldn't it be a kicker if it was a democrat who realased the info and not a republican. Also, can charges of slander be filed?Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1092666836752441482004-08-17T04:33:00.000+14:002004-08-17T04:33:00.000+14:00damn andrew, i think that we might agree on somthi...damn andrew, i think that we might agree on somthing.<br />you will have to read the preface, though i did not model it in a market place context, just a moral context. But i do agree that it is ok to withhold sources in some cases, but not this on.<br /><br /><br />though, i am not sure i follow you on this point.<br /><br />"That's bad, because if every journalist did it, nobody would be able to report the inside 'scoop' on crime and the state would have priveledge to run amok; there would be little difference between arrest and conviction at that point."<br /><br />I don't quite see the connection between a journalist turing over their criminal souces (in all situations), and the line between arest and conviction disappearing. <br /><br />I would assert that it is not the journalist's job to find criminals it is the police's job to do that, so when journalist do those jobs they are just preforming a redunant function (though not a bad redunant funciton to preform). Journalist are more suited to ratting out goverment officials.<br /><br />But i do see the connection between, protecting sources who rat out goverment officals and the goverment running amok.Man of Issacharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01286646646103516828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5773875.post-1092614567750248612004-08-16T14:02:00.000+14:002004-08-16T14:02:00.000+14:00Journalism is a vital element in democracy, as it ...Journalism is a vital element in democracy, as it provides the information necessary for constituents to develop informed opinions. Ergo, the existence of journalism predicates the existence of democracy.<br /><br />So the protection of sources is there in order to protect journalism and thereby protect democracy. As you pointed out, journalists who out their sources--criminal or otherwise--run the risk of never receiving criminal sources again. That's bad, because if every journalist did it, nobody would be able to report the inside 'scoop' on crime and the state would have priveledge to run amok; there would be little difference between arrest and conviction at that point.<br /><br />Now, the way most people reasonable people interpret the whole situation is that journalist's do not have a constitutional right to withhold sources. If that were the case, the government wouldn't even think about applying pressure on them and putting them in jail for it. No, the right of journalists to withhold sources is an asserted right--journalists who feel that they need to withhold a source can practice civil disobedience and receive due punishment for their actions. If they don't think the particular source (and their reputation) is worth that sacrifice, they rat out there source. It's actually a beautiful arrangement, as it provides a marketplace for journalists to differentiate between obvious mass-child-murderers (who they have little interest in protecting for long) and certain strategic or controversial sources that may lead to bigger stories.<br /><br />In this case, I'd say that they should out their source, as it appears that the reason they're not doing so is because they are partisan hacks, not principled journalists, and because its a matter of national security.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09630008489920013400noreply@blogger.com