Kevin,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a Shield Law is the protect the journalist, and perhaps, for the Journalist attempting to “protect” his or her sources.

As such, Journalists don’t “need” any protections.

More on point, the Fourth Estate is is both short sighted and obtuse. Therefore, establishing a “Free Press Court of Law, at the Federal Level, would permit Journalists and Citizen Journalists to “plead” a case when it comes to challenging the local or federal government’s behavior for “restricting” the Journalist when it comes to Free Speech. And who knows, the Journalist could receive a financial”reparation” for professional damage done?

Jaango

Welcome Dina,

As to the introduction, it was wonderfully said.

Now, I’m a fan of history, and being long of tooth, and grey of beard, I lived through the 1960′s but my perspective is predicated on what occurred here in the Sonoran Desert, among Native Americans, Chicanos, African Americans, was well as Asian Americans. Thusly, the the starting point is the “grito de Crystal” and which derives from the internment camp for Asian Americans in Cyrstal City, Texas, and which continues to carry forward to today’s toxic politics.

And after having read, seen, and heard of your three political Icons for these many years, what can you say that can be attributed to a person from the Sonoran Desert, that reinforces their history, given that each person, will be lucky to be included as a footnote in a history book, and as seen from the perspective of amy future historian?

Jaango

I am adamantly opposed to any Shield Law for the Fourth Estate, and to include Citizen Journalists on the Internet.

The AP and other media outlets are attempting to “protect” themselves from their reporting behaviors, and the DOJ has called them all out, and into the Public Square,we must go.

And I’m of the belief, that if you want to be a whistleblower while within a government agency, so be it. And moreso, when a decision maker utters a public statement that is anonymous or non-attributable, the media outlets are just ‘protecting’ their turf from their competition. Today, Jonathan Kark, national political reporter for ABC News is now seen as a prudential “flack” for getting played by a Republican staffer. Of course, Karly won’t publicize the name of the “staffer” for fear of not having further “access,” and which means that we should all be “boycotting” or “ostracizing” Karl, and done in public.

To wit, a Shield for Journalists, is just another moment of many, that “protects” the Journalist, and not the accuracy of the story. Of course, there’s always the opportunity to make millions on publishing “protected” stories, even when the “unassailable” Facts are absent.

Jaango

First, I am not in favor of any Shield Law that protects journalists.

Second, the legislative history demonstrates that Obama, as a Senator, co-sponsored a Federal Shield Law, but did not vote for it, and to “the why” is non-relevant. As such, the House passed this legislation, and in the Senate, the Republicans killed it.

Now, as to Holder, he recused himself and still the DOJ issued the requisite legal document and presented it to the telecoms, and not to the AP, and which brings forth two questions. Did the DOJ go to the Secret Court for formal approval? And did the DOJ notify the AP that their legal document would be provided to the AP?

Yesterday, the AP suggested that the AP notified the Obama administration that its story would be withheld pending completion of the “operation.” Afterwards, the AP published the story. In normal circumstances, the DOJ would have “negotiated” with the AP relative to the story, and ultimately, the “investigation” of any leaked sources, and thusly, providing the AP the opportunity to either cooperate or seek relief in a federal court.

Therefore, from my perspective, this politicial “dust up” is just in another series of Executive “over-reach.” More so, since no one, either in the Executive, Congress or the Fourth Estate, refuse to discuss or debate the rescinsion of both the AUMF and the Patriot Act.

Consequently, the “critique” is missing it cardinal point, and that being the failure to rescind both the AUMF and the Patriot Act. In closing, this false bravodo for Outrage, is just another childish behavior, writ large.

Note: For those of us who publish on the Internet, we don’t need a Federal or State Shield Law, since we all know, that the Patriot Act, is now being applled to all of and properly done out of the Cross-Marketing of FEAR.

Jaango

DSWright,

Thanks for this post, as it reaffirms my belief in America’s political cognoscenti.

To wit, one among the many of my favorite Great Scribblers, and in recent days, he coined the phraseology for the “virulent indifference” toward brown people, as espoused by the Right, both nationally and locally in all things political. Of course, I was too far ahead of him from many years ago when I crafted my version, and that being, the Criminally Stupid, and Boehner fits this appropriate descriptions of mine and my buddy, this Great Scribbler.

Jaango