Tuesday, October 20, 2009

REPORTER PRIVILEGE, ACADEMIC PRIVILEGE OR NO PRIVILEGE

This

is interesting.

Who's right? Does it matter what the S/A's motive is?

5 Comments:

At 10:35 AM, October 21, 2009, Blogger Allthenewsthatfits said...

Interesting situation. Kirk's and Alvarez's explanations of their subpoenas don't pass the smell test for me. The students published a story, so that makes them journalists in my book and thus protected under the privilege law. And if the interview is on the Web, then the prosecutors should just watch the interview. Looks to me like a ham-handed effort at intimidation.

 
At 12:12 PM, October 21, 2009, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I pretty much agree with you. Politically, Alvarez is burning a bridge here because the deathies were open-minded about her. They won't be now.

TYFCB

 
At 5:27 PM, October 21, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This situation is an example of why good reporters destroy all notes after a story is printed/aired.

 
At 11:25 AM, October 22, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is bad because then the reporter can't prove they reported accurately...

Catch-22.

 
At 12:06 PM, October 22, 2009, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Hobson's Choice: Trading one kind of liability for another.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home