Seth said:
Why in the world does anyone on this list trust Declan McCullagh?
You've got a sympathant reporter that knows his beat. Also, he's protective, and that's a lot more than you might get elsewhere. Most big "investigative" full-teeth news orgs roll over as a matter of practice, and wouldn't offer you any level of source protection. (I previously posted an outline for a reporter-source agreement, but it's not much help in a criminal context.) If this was another reporter, there probably wouldn't be a fight here. It's not Declan's fault that press shields have been shot full of holes. I know some reporters that have fought these fights... some have trouble finding work... all are nervous near federal all-terrain vehicles. Nevertheless, Seth, your post is illustrative. The erosion of press shields in this country only serve to *keep information away* from the general public and authorities. On balance, I wonder if it might cost them more than they gain from it. When discontents stop talking to reporters, the government is in the dark until ..."KABOOOM!" Another way to draw attention to oneself, or one's cause, is to talk to reporters. Sadly, many "could be dangerous people" are reluctant to do that now. A trusted in-the-know reporter can serve an important educational role to the LEA and the public, who sometimes "misunderstand" collective groups of individuals. This educational role can be in the interests of all parties, and need not involve testimony, prosecutorial acts, or finking. Just judicially unfettered newsgathering and reporting. The press is an intermediary in public dialogue. Our changing demographics and pockets of discontent seem to make for stronger arguments for press shields, not weaker ones. The comments of May, Finkelstein, et. al. seem to support this proposition. Off soapbox, ~Aimee