All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Heart Huckabee?: Mike Huckabee, following in the illustrious Bruno Magli footsteps of O.J. Simpson, has become the latest public figure to decry the blasted media's fixation on Paris Hilton and her ilk. “One of the frustrations is that there is more attention on Britney Spears getting out of a car without underwear than there is about who is going to be the next president,” he told the Associated Press. Who will be next to take this brave stance? Hiccup girl? Prince Harry? An ailing whale shark? Stay tuned!

Words Fail Her: You know what's not cool? Murder jokes! Reports CNN: "A Lebanese television anchor's comments and laughter regarding the assassination of Lebanese anti-Syrian parliamentarian Walid Eido have caused a furor and resulted in her firing." The unidentified anchor didn't realize the microphone was on when she made the comments, natch. At least she didn't go to the bathroom.

Swords, But No Shields: Unlike Indiana Republican Mike Pence and others, the White House says there is no need for a federal shield law for journalists. "History has demonstrated that the protections already in place, including the department's own rigorous internal review of media subpoena requests, are sufficient," Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand told the House Judiciary Committee, according to the AP. Basic message: Chill out, journalists. Sure, potential whistleblowers may be less likely to share crucial information for fear the government will force you to reveal their identity. But who cares about all that, right? We're all a little whistleblown out anyway. Onto the more important issues!

The media isn’t exactly beloved by all these days – particularly among those who would like to see several of this year’s Pulitzer Prize winners prosecuted for treason. And apparently, Karl Rove isn’t thrilled about how journalists cover politics either.

Those sentiments aren’t helping journalists too much in Congress, where Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is promoting a national shield law. AJR summarizes the thrust of the bill:

Specter's "Free Flow of Information Act" would set a national standard for the protection of confidential sources. It would compel journalists either to reveal their sources or face contempt-of-court charges only when the court has exhausted all other sources of information, and — most important — when the public's interest in obtaining the information outweighs its interest in protecting confidential sources.

While there are various shield laws and precedents among the states and the District of Columbia, this law would offer some protection for journalists’ sources in federal courts, where in the past two years (remember Judy Miller?) according to AJR “more than 30 reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned by federal court officials about their confidential sources.”

But anti-media sentiment isn’t helping the cause, according to some. AJR notes that on June 29, when the Senate Judiciary Committee failed for the second time to vote on Specter’s bill, members of the House of Representatives were voting – 227-183 – to approve a resolution “not only condemning the media but also stating that they ‘may have placed the lives of Americans in danger.’” While Specter said he didn’t have enough members present to pass his bill, Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment attorney and counsel for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, told AJR that the "same week the House formally passes a resolution condemning the press … some on Capitol Hill may not want to be handing out privileges to the press." While Goldberg said he “still want[s] to say this will get through the Judiciary Committee,” he noted that “with every passing week, you can probably knock 5 percent off its chances of making it out of committee."

Read full post…

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday things got a little snarky between members and a senior Justice Department official, Matthew Friedrich. Friedrich was called to the session to discuss, among other issues, suggestions that reporters can be prosecuted for reporting classified information. In addition to some pretty huffy back-and-forth with committee members, Friedrich’s statements led committee chairman Arlen Specter (R, Pa.) to suggest that the Senate would take up the issue of a shield law.

While Friedrich reiterated Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ statements that journalists – and anyone else -- could be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, committee Specter noted that such threats were “an invitation to the Congress to legislate on the subject because we do decide whether criminal prosecutions will be brought. That is clearly our authority and we're now on notice as to what we need to consider. Clearly, the ball is in our court,” The New York Sun reported.

Mr. Specter grew irritated when Mr. Friedrich declined to say whether prosecutors have actually considered indicting journalists for their role in publishing classified information. "I don't even understand your point in declining to answer whether the Department of Justice has ever considered it," the senator said.

When Mr. Friedrich began to allude to historical examples, Mr. Specter shot back, "I'm not interested in history this morning. I'm interested in current events."

Snap!!

Read full post…