"Anonymous Sources"

[VaticanAssassin]

Try to put on a non partisan hat....

So we have this whole first Amendment thing, which is a good thing.

But as politics gets uglier and uglier it seems "anonymous sources"have become the backbone of every story.

I do not think anyone doubts the politicians abuse this feeding half true, fake, and misleading stories to the press. I have little doubt the press itself makes up "anonymous sources".

Should anonymous sources be protected if the information is false?

If a reporter reports a story based solely on a anonymous source, and that story is proven to be a complete lie, would you support a law that requires the reporter to give up said source, and the source could then be tried for a crime?

Are lies protected by the 1st as well?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Try to put on a non partisan hat....

So we have this whole first Amendment thing, which is a good thing.

But as politics gets uglier and uglier it seems "anonymous sources"have become the backbone of every story.

Journalists use those all the time. It's very simple: Some people in the know are willing to talk to the press, but not if it might get them fired or disciplined.

 

[Lancecastor]

Do we get nice crisp Hugo Boss-designed uniforms with brown shirts and stylish peaked hats, too?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do we get nice crisp Hugo Boss-designed uniforms with brown shirts and stylish peaked hats, too?

So passe! I want whoever designs those North Korean uniforms, with the huge peaked caps!

 

[Lancecastor]

So passe! I want whoever designs those North Korean uniforms, with the huge peaked caps!

I dunno; if you're going to go authoritarian, pretty hard to beat the national socialist look.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Are lies protected by the 1st as well?

One's right to lie without prior restraint is so protected, but one could then depending on context open oneself to a criminal charge of perjury or obstruction of justice or tampering with an investigation, or a civil suit for libel or slander.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have little doubt the press itself makes up "anonymous sources".

Then you're an idiot. Every journalist knows getting caught at that would not only get you fired but permanently destroy your career.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If a reporter reports a story based solely on a anonymous source, and that story is proven to be a complete lie, would you support a law that requires the reporter to give up said source, and the source could then be tried for a crime?

Certainly not. In most such cases the source has not committed a crime, and in all cases, shield laws exist for very good reasons. I would never think of requiring a reporter to disclose an anonymous source unless lives were at stake.

 

[pointless]

Try to put on a non partisan hat....

So we have this whole first Amendment thing, which is a good thing.

But as politics gets uglier and uglier it seems "anonymous sources"have become the backbone of every story.

I do not think anyone doubts the politicians abuse this feeding half true, fake, and misleading stories to the press. I have little doubt the press itself makes up "anonymous sources".

Should anonymous sources be protected if the information is false?

If a reporter reports a story based solely on a anonymous source, and that story is proven to be a complete lie, would you support a law that requires the reporter to give up said source, and the source could then be tried for a crime?

Are lies protected by the 1st as well?

look, it's okay. this is a free country. you can just go ahead and admit you're a neofascist. everyone already knows anyway.

 

[Rightguide]

Try to put on a non partisan hat....

So we have this whole first Amendment thing, which is a good thing.

But as politics gets uglier and uglier it seems "anonymous sources"have become the backbone of every story.

I do not think anyone doubts the politicians abuse this feeding half true, fake, and misleading stories to the press. I have little doubt the press itself makes up "anonymous sources".

Should anonymous sources be protected if the information is false?

If a reporter reports a story based solely on a anonymous source, and that story is proven to be a complete lie, would you support a law that requires the reporter to give up said source, and the source could then be tried for a crime?

Are lies protected by the 1st as well?

I think reporters in possession of classified information ought to be prosecuted.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think reporters in possession of classified information ought to be prosecuted.

Depending on how they got it, they can be prosecuted now. At any rate, they should not be restrained from publishing it; the SCOTUS made the right call in NYT v. Nixon.

 

[Disgustipated]

look, it's okay. this is a free country. you can just go ahead and admit you're a neofascist. everyone already knows anyway.

I think reporters in possession of classified information ought to be prosecuted.

Perfect.

 

[Hard_Rom]

A reporter who knowingly lies loses there job. And gets caught. Always have, always will. Politicians not likely, just maybe.

As long as it is not slanderous or libelous it is legal.

You Yanks are so big on free speech why wouldn't lies be protected. Racist language is protected.

False news is illegal up here. A symptom of free speech restrictions.
correction I was wrong
In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.

 

[KingOrfeo]

False news is illegal up here. A symptom of free speech restrictions.

Does that have any chilling effect on reportage of real news? Serious question.

 

[Lancecastor]

False news is illegal up here.

Wrong, as usual.

You should shut up and go file for disability.

 

[scsoutherngent]

Journalist use anonymous sources to back up their stories. No journalist will ever us an anonymous source as the entirety of their story. They research a story, and the source backs it, or the source gives them the story and then they research it.

Notice that I used the word "journalist" in my reply. That applies to actual reporters. This doesn't apply to commentators, most bloggers, or any talking head that appears on your TV. There is a difference, and people need to understand

 

[KingOrfeo]

Journalist use anonymous sources to back up their stories. No journalist will ever us an anonymous source as the entirety of their story. They research a story, and the source backs it, or the source gives them the story and then they research it.

Notice that I used the word "journalist" in my reply. That applies to actual reporters. This doesn't apply to commentators, most bloggers, or any talking head that appears on your TV. There is a difference, and people need to understand

No, it doesn't, but what the latter say is usually based on stories reporters have published, sometimes based on anonymous sources.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Does that have any chilling effect on reportage of real news? Serious question.

CBC gets a bit fluffy at times.

 

[Conager]

It's all on the readers. if they want to pay people to collect lies, or have reporters directly lie to them more power to them.

Anyone stupid enough to believe unnamed sources of people who are willing to go on the record is just going to wait for someone to tell them whatever it is they already want to buy into.

Not every unnamed source is worthless, but rarely, in a sane world, would they carry the same gravitas as someone willing to openly speak.

Given the whistleblower statutes there is rarely an honorable reason to stay in the shadoes if you have something meaningful to say.

The current environment is being created because reporters are all just guessing at what sources might say if such a source existed, and fantasizing they will be the next Woodward and Bernstein.

 

[Conager]

Journalist use anonymous sources to back up their stories. No journalist will ever us an anonymous source as the entirety of their story. They research a story, and the source backs it, or the source gives them the story and then they research it.

Notice that I used the word "journalist" in my reply. That applies to actual reporters. This doesn't apply to commentators, most bloggers, or any talking head that appears on your TV. There is a difference, and people need to understand

All true, but journalism gasped its last breath, years ago.

 

[Hard_Rom]

edited my post

In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.


Freedom of expression in Canada is guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
Section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitations clause, establishes that the guarantee of freedom of expression and other rights under the Charter are not absolute and can be limited under certain situations:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted, if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated, if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Given the whistleblower statutes there is rarely an honorable reason to stay in the shadoes if you have something meaningful to say.

Of course there often is; despite those statutes, there are all kinds of ways one might come to regret having one's name linked to a disclosure. Public attention alone might qualify -- we're living in an age where people can get stalked or worse, online or IRL, for doing nothing wrong.

 

[Conager]

Of course there often is; despite those statutes, there are all kinds of ways one might come to regret having one's name linked to a disclosure. Public attention alone might qualify -- we're living in an age where people can get stalked or worse, online or IRL, for doing nothing wrong.

Come on. Do the right thing. Quit being a pussy and come forward as the source mentioned in all these stories.

You don't want President Drumpf getting away with "it,"* do you?!??

*whatever the "it" for today happens to be...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Come on. Do the right thing. Quit being a pussy and come forward as the source mentioned in all these stories.

Nah, the only thing I leaked was the one about the 15-year-old boy, the schnauzer, and wading pool full of Vaseline. Didn't get much coverage, for some reason, even though I provided the receipts and the video footage and everything. Guess I should have taken it to somebody besides the Podunk Weekly Shopper.

 

[Sean]

I think reporters in possession of classified information ought to be prosecuted.

And their books burned in a big bonfire in the street, right?