the anti-Obama people will now start backing Fox.
Part of that circular game for the far far left going all the way around to bump into the
far far right.
Scary to think of that
Being that both are so avidly pro-gun.

Hell yes I will back the "journalist" in this circumstance. This information was already known to the investigators when the "journalist" found out. It in no way has any effect on the defense. "Journalists" should be vigorously defended in matters such as this. The judge, in the end, will not grant the request of the defense. Why you would is beyond me.

you're gonna pull a muscle.

This has little to do with Obama or even guns, despite the specific case at hand.

In fact, unless there is way more to the story than meets the eye, it isn't even about Fox.

Suggestion: look it up.

also google: Logical fallacy.

Why, I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a shit stirrer. Which makes you easy to ignore.

it therefore does not have "real" reporters....right?

I'm all about protecting sources, but you don't get protection if you knowingly violate the law -- or act in a manner that encourages someone else to violate the law.

This is the defense stating that it is necessary for their case. How will this help JH's case. It won't, in any way. Why should a judge force her to reveal her source at the request of the defense team. If it is about the original gag order, this was not the proper avenue.

I'm surprised they didn't write the notebook themselves as I always assume they were their own source of all their BS. That a FOX news reporter admit they reported actual real information would only increase their colleagues opinion.

Some of them were actually legitimate journalism students as well as pretty talking heads, and do the best they can for the local markets.

As she purports to be a journalist - a member of the press, she is protected under the First Amendment. I have no issues with her trying to protect her sources - heck, even as much as I think Judith Miller was a hack, I didn't have an issue with her refusing to name her source for her "column".

This is because I want any investigation on "leaks" and unexpected or controversial breaking news to be a serious investigation instead of just bullying or beating up the reporter that broke the news. If the reporter broke the law to get their information, then I want the law to be just, instead of just a threat to whistleblowers.

In this case, since it was a notebook supposedly sent to the psychiatrist, it should not be too hard to identify where the "leak" came from. Either someone who knew Holmes, someone from the psychiatrist's office, or someone in the police force/DA's office who had access to evidence collected. Or the reporter made it up.

Haele

Jana Winter is not an employee of a local Fox broadcast affiliate. She is a New York-based reporter employed by FoxNews.

That being said, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether she is a reporter for a local station or for Fox News. As you correctly note, a reporter's right to protect the confidentiality of his or her sources is very important, no matter who employs the reporter.

Think of it this way: should Mother Jones have to disclose the source of the McConnell tape?

and how it has been chipped away in the name of national security, and potentially now even regarding mass shootings, this is gonna be about how much Fox sucks.

IANAL, and I won't pretend to understand the nuances of this particular case. Perhaps there is a case to be made since her sources may have been violating a gag order or something. But not in this venue, at this time. My understanding is that it is not up to Holmes' defense lawyers to make this charge and make it part of his case.

First off, thanks for proving my point.

Do you have a position on the right of the press to protect their sources?

Do you know what a fundamental human rights principle it is? Why it is so important and controversial?

Do you know tha it is even part of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights?

Would your position on the protection of sources change if this article were about a reporter you 'like' being subpeonaed about their sources?

Do you believe fundamental human rights only apply to those who you perceive as agreeing with you?

people here always put President Obama down for not going back and doing something about Bush and Reagan with the Iran/Hostages/Contra and then later on.

But, because of things like this with weird alliances, it is impossible to prosecute
(like no charges for Rove in the leak case)

Yet Obama gets blamed daily here
when in fact
The ACLU got Ollie North out of jail for technicalities, that most likely, the Bush admin. in advance set up knowingly to get them out of it later (then they were all pardoned afterwards, though a couple died).

So if one should give a pass to situations like this, I want a pass given to the current Presidents for not being able to go back because no prosecution and guilty verdict will come out of it.

BTW, Susan MacDouglas was harassed and harassed yet people still rail on Bill Clinton and Hillary.

It is very selective to only rail against the Clinton and Obama's.

And so far off topic I won't even try.

Bye.

and report on them.

And since she works for FUX, this doesn't apply to her.

Sometimes it sucks to have to say that (Judy Miller comes to mind), but there it is.

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I say that because of certain bench marks that many in the News game say makes you a good journalist.

1) To be thrown out of a government building for asking to many questions that they REALLY don't want to answer! (I am proud to say I have hit this mark!)

2) To be sued for libel and win!

3) To face jail for not revealing sources. (preferred to have Editor/News Directors blessing)

Then again, It has told me as of late that "did" is spelled "d-e-d".

What you see on Fox News is what is edited by the Sales department. The Reporters do their job just like any other, and then they watch as all of what they did just gets chucked.

This happens at CNN, MSNBC, even on the newspaper end.

Things were made nasty with the Judgment of April 28, 2009. Being a reporter is harder than ever

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/