I Have Returned

I apologize to my readership for not having posted recently, but I have been busy doing other things. I spent a week in Pennsylvania with bass-luthier and living legend Carl Thompson [Link], which was, of course, incredible. I learned a variety of things, one of which is that I must own one of his basses. *sigh* Guess I have to work for a bit longer. Work, recently, has also been out of hand, with a whole section of our network going down, and with the mantle of responsibility being placed squarely on my head. However, rejoice and be glad, for I have returned, and you may once again waste hours of your precious time reading my vitriolic rantings and ravings. One more point of order before we proceed: Several of my readers have spoken to me about the rather pointed (some say obscene) language that I have used in my posts. Recently, I have been steering away from the use of obscene language for the benefit of my readership. However, be warned, that it may return in the future because of this simple point: this is my personal page. You are reading my thoughts. If you don't like them, or the way in which I present them, you don't have to read them. This isn't Russia. (This isn't Russia, is it Danny?) So, to recapitulate, Welcome back to Get on the Bandwagon, now with 98% less cursing^*!

There is an issue that I would like to adress that has me worried. Not only am I worried by the substance of the incident, but also by the fact that the general public doesn't seem to care. (On a whole, the revelation of the apathy of the public isn't as horrific for me anymore. It's like watching the same slasher flick again and again, only to become desensitized to the horrendous gore.) However, the issue of which I speak is that of the rejection by the Supreme Court of "The Reporters Privilege." Reporters privilege is a strange beast, being different in each judical district, but the general idea of the deal is that reporters should not face jail time for refusing to reveal the sources of information that they may have published, referenced or gathered. Recently, in the national trial dealing with the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, Judith Miller of The New York Times has been jailed for being in contempt of court after she refused to reveal her sources. She is sentenced to stay in jail until October or until she decides to acquiesce, which she has said she will not. [Link]

Now, while I disagree with the subject she is being protective over (you don't reveal agent's indentities unless they are committing crimes or have received consent to do so), she still has that right, and that is the main point. The reporters privilege laws were introduced for a very good reason; that of Freedom of the Press. If reporters were forced to reveal their sources, American investigative journalism would fall to it's knees. It most likely would never have existed, nor, more than likely, would our country. (A large portion of incitement towards revoltion was done in published newspapers at the time. As a side note, what happened to the time when public officals and leaders had flowing prose, or at least a decent sense of the language? I digress.) That may be hyperbolic, but investigative journalism, as a whole, is generally another check in the governmental power system, albeit a weak one. What if Woodward and Bernstein were dragged in front the courts and forced to reveal Deep Throat and other information sources or spend time in the clink? What justice would be done there? None, says I. Generally, when reporters are subpoenaed, it is nothing more than the standard tactics of a school yard bully, shaking down the kids, yelling that the kid who ratted him out step forward or the beatings will commence.

On another point, if hard-hitting, blow-it-wide-open journalism is what the American public really wants, the forced revealation of sources by journalists is only going to hinder it. If I had incredibly sensitive information about the goings on of a large company, say, dumping something somwhere where they shouldn't oughtta be dumping something, I would speak to the press only on the condition that my anonymity be absolutely guaranteed. Who knows what danger, either financially or physically, I could be in for disclosing information such as that? However, it would be in the public's best interest to know it, so if anonymity could be guaranteed, then I would spill. I'm sure the same is true for many, many people, whom would like to do the right thing, but don't want to be punished for it, as is the style of our "civilization" at the time. This is why these laws, statutes and safe-guards need to be kept in place. Not for the reporter's sake, nor the source's sake, but for the American public's sake. If no one is safe from retribution for doing what is right, i.e. disclosing potentially harmful information, then we, as a society, are doomed.