Declan McCullagh and prosecutions

[Aimee Farr]

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