That really is a good question given the special protections offered journalists. In his latest column entitled Press Credentials Fred Reed takes aim at a recent and incredibly stupid decision by United States District Judge Marco A. Hernandez. In this decision Hernandez lists seven criteria he thinks define a journalist deserving of protection under the First Amendment and the shield laws:
- Education in journalism
- Credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity
- Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest
- Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted
- Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources
- Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others
- Contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story.
Reed -- having actually been a journalist for decades -- neatly dissects the unbelievable ignorance Hernandez demonstrates in the above. In a blast of pure vitriolic brilliance, Fred offers as a response to Hernandez, "Vete a la chingada, cabrón. No me estés jodiendo", which he translates as, "I appreciate your point of view. I will consider it at leisure[sic]."
I am still laughing at that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Off topic comments will be deleted. Comments with spelling or grammar errors may be deleted unless they have hoplophobic or statist content in which case they will be highlighted and ridiculed.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.