Fox News Reporter Threatened With Jail for Refusing to Disclose Source — Big Media Ignores It
Reporter tells world that police were warned in advance about possible danger posed by Aurora shooter James Holmes. Reporter is threatened with jail for refusing to disclose her sources. The world ignores the story.
Because the reporter is from Fox News.
Jake Tapper is breaking the silence. Good on him.
And to hell with the New York Times.
The times is in a hell of their own making
E.PWJ (590d06) — 4/9/2013 @ 7:09 amHere’s another ‘you really must be yanking me’:
http://moonbattery.com/?p=28283
What difference could it possibly make at this point?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 7:22 amWhat difference could it possibly make at this point?
If it was good enough for the infamous Sodom (or — if Biblical stories are deemed as not truly reflecting human nature — ancient Rome, or today’s Greece, or Argentina, or France, or Mexico, or any other two-bit society, current or of the past), it’s good enough for us.
Mark (d8d476) — 4/9/2013 @ 7:30 amThere’s nothing to see here, folks. Please, move along.
The conformist Dana (3e4784) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:08 amBoth the New York Post (2nd out of 3 on the page) and the Wall Street Journal (second, small to medium one following very long, over 2/3 of the space about Margaret Thatcher) had editorials about this today.
But, as they both said, they are owned by the same company that owns Fox News.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:09 amI think the college was warned – and it decided to protect itself, and it did.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:10 amBut what the college actually did was it precipitated it.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:11 amIt makes no sense to me that reporters can avoid providing testimony for either the defense or the prosecution. They should have no more or less rights then any of us do. This is a perversion of the 1st amendment. Some animals are more equal then others.
GoneWithTheWind (f8c7ee) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:26 amDon’t you just HATE it when the facts — in this case, clear evidence of premeditation — hinder justice for the accused?
Icy (f6133b) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:32 amThis is a pretty collateral issue — on whether persons bound by the gag order violated it. I do not see a close connection to material issues in the case in who said what to which reporter.
It is the gag order that should be under scrutiny, actually. Last time I looked, there was a right to a public trial that belonged to the public regardless of whether it was in or against the interest of the defendant and/or the government. The reporter is on pretty strong ground here.
nk (d4662f) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:45 amThe Romans may not have criminalized homosexuality, but they did not approve of it. It was a common smear in politics — Gaius Julius Caesar was called “The Queen of Bithynia” by his enemies, for supposedly taking too long to gather allied troops from the King of Bithynia.
The emperors who we “know” were gay tend to be the ones either most hated by the Romans or that persecuted Christians — Elagabalus, Nero, Caligula. And while it’s been popular recently to hang gay lovers around other emperors (Hadrian, for example), those emperors also had wives and children.
Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:53 amDangit. Wrong thread.
Sorry.
Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 4/9/2013 @ 8:53 amWait. So, in the Beyonce/Jay-Z thread we’re supposed to be annoyed that rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to them… but, here with the FoxNews reporter we’re supposed to call attention to her plight when we would be thrown in jail for doing the same thing.
So different rules apply to her, simply because she’s a “journalist”? What about a blogger?
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:16 amHere’s something else big media will ignore: Actual cops overwhelmingly oppose gun control in poll of 15,000 officers. PoliceOne
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:24 amBut wait, you mean they could have stopped the Aurora shooter without making all guns illegal? That he had been reported as being bug-f*** crazy and homicidal but his rights to privacy were judged as more important? And it is a crime to report this? I guess this is what I get for voting for Republicans.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:29 amComment by beer ‘n pretzels (6ef50f) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:16 am
So different rules apply to her, simply because she’s a “journalist”?
The Colorado shield law. (1991)
http://www.dgslaw.com/images/materials/273383.pdf
The defense attorneys subpoenaed her because they think it might be useful to them. The judge has the notebook, but maybe they think they can make some kind of an argument, depending on who told the reporter, that it should be admitted. The editoriala don’t go into the exact legal argument used as to how her information could help them. Or maybe they are just trying to get something they ask for denied so they could appeal and the judge did not deny their request.
What about a blogger?
I think it really depends on how somebody came into the possession of some knowledge.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:49 amCome on already! We were informed by no less a luminary than the Precious One that Fox is not a news organization.
To drive that point home to “real” news organizations they were informed that even following up on a story published by Fox would result in the offending “real” news organization being shunned by the White House.
So there really is no story here – a non-journalist was defying a judge’s order – case closed. The “real” news organizations see this. Why is this so hard to fathom?
in_awe (7c859a) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:58 am15. And CT could have stopped the Fragile X Newtown killer but the goal of government is in fact to facilitate atrocities on the premise that Big Brother can help.
Armageddon can’t come quick enough.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:01 amSo different rules apply to her, simply because she’s a “journalist”? What about a blogger?
Comment by beer ‘n pretzels (6ef50f) — 4/9/2013 @ 9:16 am
— If their material is both original and factual, then they’re journalists, too — no credentials or college degrees necessary!
Icy (f6133b) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:10 amMaybe the reason it’s not a story yet is because it’s not a story yet. There’s no threat; no judge has ordered her to reveal her sources.
First, the judge needs to determine if the notebook is admissible as evidence. If not, then the whole thing is moot.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:13 amThe NYT just like the LAT is already IN Hell. They’re just recruiting for Satan now.
Jcw46 (0af03c) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:18 amThere is no federal right to media to protect their sources. There are state shield laws. Unfortunately, Colorado’s is notoriously weak. The source would still be protected by whistleblower laws, but there is a legitimate reason to compel the reporter to reveal her source.
The #1 reason to force a reporter to reveal her source is that people have a right to question the person accusing them of a crime. Just think about the situation in reverse where the state used secret testimony to slander your name and make you anathema in society. Do you have a right to question the accuser and clear your name?
NJRob (aa0247) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:50 amhttp://www.popehat.com/2013/04/09/misconduct-is-only-news-when-journalists-say-it-is/
SPQR (768505) — 4/9/2013 @ 10:58 amRob (21)
This isn’t about the shield law, this is about the double standard in the media. If you bug Republican candidates and record embarrassing comments, that’s worth a Pulitzer; if you bug Democrats you should go to jail and/or be impeached. If you release information that OBVIOUSLY affects public debate about national issues, this is only OK so long as the debate is influenced in the “correct” direction. I could go on, but the list is very long and depressing.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/9/2013 @ 11:09 amThere’s an op-ed piece by Judith Miller (who was jailed, while working for the New York Times, for not revealing a source in the Plame case, and now works for Fox News) in today’s Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-miller-holmes-confidentiality-source-20130409,0,2607226.story
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 11:34 amDecision delayed: (until the judge decides whether the contents of the notebook are admissible – they might be protected by patient privilege – but wait – that only applies against the prosecution. I don’t understand)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/colorado-judge-kicks-decision-fox-news-jana-winter-further-down-road/64006/
Salon: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/fox_news_reporter_could_face_jail_for_protecting_aurora_sources/singleton/
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/08/fox-news-reporter-facing-jail-for-protecting-source-mainstream-media-yawns-raising-questions-of-liberal-bias/
Poynter: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/209539/fox-news-reporter-who-wont-reveal-sources-threatened-with-jail/
Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/fox-news-reporter-faces-jail-for-protecting-sources-161062.html
Gawker:
http://gawker.com/5994044/here-is-a-fox-news-reporter-who-doesnt-belong-in-jail
On April 8, all sorts of places were suddenly talking about her.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/9/2013 @ 11:41 amMeanwhile pointing out that someone is belfry full of bats, that’s some kind of offense to god and country;
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/mcconnell-transcript
narciso (3fec35) — 4/9/2013 @ 12:54 pmI’m familiar with the double standard. Look at the blackout on the Colorado Democrats rape comments versus the Todd Akin comments. Look at the reporting on the Newtown shooting versus Kermit Gosnell. It’s disgusting how the media pushes the left’s agenda. But that has nothing to do with the legality of hiding sources. We need to be careful that we don’t permit the media to just make up sources, think Dan Rather’s George Bush AWOL reports, when it comes to shield laws. We cannot allow people to be protected no matter what because it doesn’t support people being able to defend themselves in a court of law. Too easy to create a witch hunt scenario where there is no chance of a fair trial.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 4/9/2013 @ 2:56 pmThis will teach those FauxNews hacks for pretending to be journalists when what they should have become are Democrat Operatives with a ByLine.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 4/9/2013 @ 3:15 pm27. I don’t see how your point pertains.
Per Sammy the tenace here is the State or City could have prevented Holmes and saved everyone.
They have the psychiatrist they don’t need the reporter’s source.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 3:54 pmThey could have the psychiatrist’s information to find out what she said, but they cannot find out who violated the court’s order to prevent people from speaking outside the court. That is what they’re trying to find out. There is no right to a source without a valid shield law. The law in Colorado is easily bypassed. What you and I should be doing is impressing upon the Colorado legislature to remove such an obvious exception to the law. But the issue is that the reporter does not have a right to ignore the court’s order to reveal her source. That has nothing to do with the specific information that the psychiatrist will reveal.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 4/9/2013 @ 3:58 pm30. In fact, they do not even know that the gag order was violated.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 4:01 pmA gag order on information that is vital to public debate is constitutionally dicey. Canada tried this wrt suppressing info about large-scale kickbacks of government spending to campaign funds, claiming that low-level flunkies trials would be disrupted — never mind the impact it might have on the upcoming election. Canadian press couldn’t report it, but US bloggers did, and the Canadian Liberals got turned out over it.
When the President is holding up the Aurora shooter as evidence that we need to lock up all the guns — and the truth that is being suppressed is that people knew this guy was nuts but did nothing — blocking that information because it would (marginally) affect the trial is pretty transparent politicking by the judge.
Freedom of the Press and of Speech trumps the shooters right to have an infinitesimally less biased jury pool.
In short, fooey.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/9/2013 @ 5:37 pmThe gag order is there to protect the University, not James Holmes. Dr Lynn Fenton reported Holmes’ instability to University authorities and she backed it up with records of Holmes’ threats against her and with a copy of the detailed notebook Holmes sent her. It was complete with vivid descriptions and stick figure illustrations of how he intended to kill people.
That notebook was delivered to Holmes’ defense lawyers to keep it confidential and out of the reach of the victims and the public so they couldn’t learn just how careless and culpable the University was in failing to identify Holmes as a threat to the appropriate authorities and to take steps to prevent him from putting his murderous plans in action.
That perversion of justice so turned the stomach of someone with a conscience that the existence of the notebook was conveyed to reporter Jana Winter. Now, the despicable whores pretending to represent Holmes but who are also working to protect the University’s interests are attempting to blame the messenger and have Winter jailed for the crime of revealing the truth.
ropelight (563c3f) — 4/10/2013 @ 11:25 amComment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/9/2013 @ 5:37 pm
and the Canadian Liberals got turned out over it.
What year, what election?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:02 pmFor the record, the incompetent Fenton was asked whether she would like to order him taken in for an involuntary evaluation, said “no.” And her expressed reason for saying no was that he was withdrawing so the problem would take care of itself.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:08 pmthe truth that is being suppressed is that people knew this guy was nuts but did nothing
No, I don’t think they did nothing. Wasn’t he barred from campus? But how far could they go, based on a hunch?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-james-holmes-threat-psychiatrist-20130405,0,5379451.story
I’m sure they had some kind of semi-unrelated reason. And they may be right, he wasn’t legally barred – just prevented from entering without signing in as a guest, possibly because he dropped out or they suspended him.
Whatever they did, it might be something they had a right to do even for an arbitrary reason.
Were they supposed to think he might kill people off-campus? And if they did, what were they supposed to do??
I suppose they could have called his mother.
No trial lawyer would hold them culpable once he was limited to the rights of the general public on campus.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:15 pmComment by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:08 pm
And her expressed reason for saying no was that he was withdrawing so the problem would take care of itself.
We all know that school shooters only shoot people in schools.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:16 pmComment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/9/2013 @ 3:54 pm
Per Sammy the tenace here is the State or City could have prevented Holmes and saved everyone.
tenace?? I don’t understand.
Nobody knew abouit all the money he had spent and what he had done with it. As I said, him dropping pout of school could have precipitated it because it meant it was now or never and he’d be bankrupt if he tried to live anormal life. He’d used the student loan kickback money to build his bombs and buy his weapons.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:20 pmThe New York Times has a story about this today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/in-the-jana-winter-case-a-debate-over-protecting-news-sources.html?_r=0
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:23 pmSammy, the state of Colorado is going to a lot of trouble to try to hide just what they knew of Holmes in advance of his shooting spree.
SPQR (6862c1) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:37 pm