> Under the reporter’s privilege, a plaintiff in a defamation suit should first prove that what a journalist reported was false, defamatory and based upon unreliable sources before documents are turned over to anyone.
Unfortunately, this allows media to presume guilt and smear the subject while requiring extensive legal cost, pain and suffering, and often little to no recourse, even in court.
I’m not sure about the details of this case, but I have a close family member who the media decided to publish false allegations as fact. The scope of the allegations is large (related to billions of dollars of public money), but they were a salaried employee making less than a new grad at a tech company.
Following the stories, which are picked up and reported by other news outlets, social media runs with it and dumps even more accusations that have no basis in reality.
The end result was they were effectively fired, have to “prove” their innocence in the public square when all information to do so is private and confidential or held by those who made the accusations, and now have to go through life with the burden of extensive local coverage of actions of a false narrative. While they retained legal counsel, the cost and time to correct the record is likely out of their reach.
This has made me extremely skeptical of news outlets and what agendas might be pushing the stories they are publishing. It may not even be the reporters fault- they are given a juicy document dump that doesn’t tell the entire story and then they infer the worst about the subject. Once that’s done there is seemingly little a normal person can do to fight back.
Beyond this specific case, I believe modern societies overvalue journalism. In the past, journalism was more revolutionary (beyond propaganda), even without formal studies. Today, I see it as an extension of politics, agendas, and clickbaity. While there are still great journalists, they are few and far between.
I think that it's equally the opposite: we undervalue true journalism, and have instead spent money on the diet version that is reduced to simply being propaganda.
1. Americans (in particular) often bemoan how inefficient the government is as a reason to cut government services. In truth, government progrtams are designed to fail. This is a highly successful strategy called "starving the beast" [1].
As an example, in 1996 then-president Clinton enacted welfare reform. One provision replaced a Federal program caleld Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") with state block grants to a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF"). This allows the state to decide how that many is spent. This has been a disaster for getting aid to those that need it [2] and much more inefficient.
It's this kind of thing that enabled Mississippi's welfare corruption.
2. A lot of effort has been spent and is still being spent to essentially divert federal funds to private (typically religious) institutions. That includes TANF blcok grants but, more importantly, the issue of "school choice", which is really just diverting education funds to religious schools.
Unfortunately having funds available to those who need it and giving funds to those who need it are very different problems. There was a significant amount of fraud with COVID funds, for example.
As a parent of four kids in public schools, less money is spent by the state on kids in choice programs and in most self selected charter schools. That seems like a win-win - parents get to choose schools that meet their educational needs, the public pays less in taxes to educated kids outside of the public school system.
My wife was a public school teacher, my mom was a public school teacher. Public schools are great for many, but their cost per pupil are in line with high end private schools and for the median students I don’t think they provide a better experience. In our area less than half of what the state gives a public school for a student is available as a voucher.
Unfortunately when a public school cannot provide a FAPE (special needs, social issues, etc.), without school choice the burden falls on the parents.
> less money is spent by the state on kids in choice programs and in most self selected charter schools. That seems like a win-win
Charter schools cherry pick students (eg they don't generally have to deal with the added expense of special needs students), tend to have more students from more affluent families (so less remedial teaching, which is more expensive), pay their teachers less (overall on average) and give less job protections to teachers.
Additionally, charters have a severe lack of accountability and a huge fraud and waste problem [1].
If the public schools in your area are "failing", it's because they've been set up to fail. Starve them of resources and sell the voters on private, unaccountable schools.
I specifically said self-selected, median students. 60-80% of students could be educated without the support services required for special education (high or low), but those students are put into facilities that are not efficient for the average student.
I also never said our public schools were failing, just that they have cost equivalent to private schools without any of the benefits.
I’m sure there are terrible charter and private school, just like there are terrible business. With a terrible business, I can go elsewhere. My community is stuck with a public school regardless of its quality.
Public schools also have little accountability and their monolithic structure amplifies bad decisions across cities. For example, my children’s school chose a math curriculum and purchased a seven year contract approved by “accountable” parties. Every year since that curriculum was adopted math scores in the district have declined. An entire generation is failing to be properly educated in basic math fundamentals!
The school district is flush with resources for everything but teachers and students. Want to put new technology in all of the classrooms and give a superintendent who failed all his metrics a raise? Sure. Maybe we’ll have money for teacher raises and a working math curriculum next year.
If a charter school costs the state less money (which even district run charters do), to pull out a portion of the population to meet their specific needs, why would you be against that? That leaves more money for special education.
I have skin in the game. I have a highly gifted child working two grades ahead in math (he went to a different district that could meet his needs). I have two students who need outside tutoring, one of which qualifies for special education services, and a fourth who would succeed in any environment you put him in. I’ve had to fight to get services required by law for my kids in a district that is supposedly working as intended by public school advocates. My wife taught in the district our kids attend. We are constantly discussing whether we should move them to private or charters that would better meet their needs or continue to fight the bureaucratic public school district.
If you don’t have school age kids and just read news articles, you probably don’t understand what parents go through when their kids don’t fit the slot the public schools provide for them. As someone living it, I’m happy that parents are able to find schools that fit their family’s needs, have resources from the state to attend them, and those resources cost me less as a taxpayer. If we had an option that suited us, we would take it.
In public middle school, I would have settled for not getting punched every day by muscular jock 8th grade bullies, and having toilet paper in the bathroom that hadn't been peed on. But apparently exotic requests like that were out of scope even in a mid-income sd.
Almost no courts in the US have recognized "citizen" journalist, simply claiming you are press or a journalist doesn't mean you are. Claiming to be a member of the press is a bit of an odd thing, because they requirements for what is acceptable vary so greatly from one instance to the next. Some online agencies will send you a "press pass" for as little as writing a few articles on your own site, or publishing a pod cast. (these are about as valid as the service dog passes you get online)
Meanwhile more traditional agencies will require you be employed by as a full time journalist and require the agency you are reporting for to submit on your behalf.
In general the only people who are afforded reporter's privilege are media companies large enough to have lawyers versed in its nuance and able to defend it.
And the only people consider press are those acting on behalf of a recognized and respected new agency.
Seems like the kind of thing that could make its way to the Supreme Court. I grew up partly in Mississippi and it wouldn't shock me at all if everything they're saying is true.
And that there is always a risk of a government trying to overstep and get privileged information they shouldn’t.
No amount of laws are going to really stop this from happening if a corrupted government is driven enough.
I am wondering if there is a way that this could be solved with technology so they could say, it’s impossible to comply.
Something like after published it’s encrypted and inaccessible but then that defeats storing it in the first place if you can’t decrypt it and if you can you can be compelled.
Maybe it’s not realistic but a thought I have had especially comparing to some other situations where the government wanted some data but it was impossible to comply thanks to encryption.
Storing it encrypted, in a way that you need multiple keys for decryption, and where the key holders are in different jurisdictions that are unfriendly to each other?
It's easier to convince an American court to require something than it is to convince both American, Russian and Chinese courts.
What's the legal basis for journalists' notes being "privileged"? There's protections for lawyers and doctors, but what exists for journalists aside from a vague sense of "journalism is important for democracy"?
If you read the article, it explains reporter privilege and the legal basis thereof. It comes from an interpretation of the First Amendment, the argument being that free speech would be chilled if reporters had to cough up the details of everyone they talk to in their investigations.
It's also just common sense. If you make it easy for anyone to sue a journalist in a way that requires them to reveal their confidential sources, the sources are no longer confidential, and people in the future won't feel safe sharing information with journalists for fear of being exposed through bogus lawsuits.
this just shows that whistleblower protection still does not go far enough. it should be possible to reveal such information without fear of retribution in the first place. in an open and just society this would not be necessary. but even if the sources remain anonymous, anyone making accusations public should at least be able to provide proof for the accusation itself. judges should be able to see that proof but also possibly keep it sealed from the public if necessary.
> Given this glaring overstep and our steadfast effort to protect our journalists and our sources, we declined to turn over that information, citing a First Amendment protection called “reporter’s privilege.” Reporter’s privilege, which is recognized by 40 states based on numerous legal interpretations of the United States Constitution, serves as a basis of protection and privacy for journalists and the sources who share important information with the press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's in the category of "you better have a damn good probable cause" if you want to forcibly intervene with publishing.
Fundamental right of the protection of journalistic sources i think. He should be able to scrub his notes of any name before handling them over, don't you think?
Unfortunately, this allows media to presume guilt and smear the subject while requiring extensive legal cost, pain and suffering, and often little to no recourse, even in court.
I’m not sure about the details of this case, but I have a close family member who the media decided to publish false allegations as fact. The scope of the allegations is large (related to billions of dollars of public money), but they were a salaried employee making less than a new grad at a tech company.
Following the stories, which are picked up and reported by other news outlets, social media runs with it and dumps even more accusations that have no basis in reality.
The end result was they were effectively fired, have to “prove” their innocence in the public square when all information to do so is private and confidential or held by those who made the accusations, and now have to go through life with the burden of extensive local coverage of actions of a false narrative. While they retained legal counsel, the cost and time to correct the record is likely out of their reach.
This has made me extremely skeptical of news outlets and what agendas might be pushing the stories they are publishing. It may not even be the reporters fault- they are given a juicy document dump that doesn’t tell the entire story and then they infer the worst about the subject. Once that’s done there is seemingly little a normal person can do to fight back.