Skip to main content

View Diary: Media ignore threat to hold Fox News reporter in contempt for protecting source in Aurora shooting (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I had not heard of this (17+ / 0-)

    One would think it would be all over the news. Thanks, MB

    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

    by high uintas on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

    •  I checked three MSM papers (22+ / 0-),, Nothing in any of them.

      The fact that she's from Fox should make it more newsworthy, not less. A Fox employee practicing journalism is "man bites dog" material.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:35:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fox News as in the cable channel (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, daeros, CIndyCasella

        or Fox as in a local Fox station?

        They're not the same thing. Local stations often do investigative work, and they do a decent job. They're not part of FNN, they're part of the Fox network of stations.

        •  So were Jane Akre and Steve Wilson... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, happymisanthropy, daeros

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:48:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •   Neither, Winter is a "reporter" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          See my comments on Jana Winter below.

          •  george clooneys 1996 press conference (0+ / 0-)

            George Clooney's Press Conference

            "Hi, thanks for coming out. Broadcasting stations such as NBC, CBS, USA Today, 60 minutes, and L.A. Times, were all wanting me to make some sort of comment about this tragedy because of my recent battle with the tabloids.
            My first reaction has been to stay out of this, I want to be fair to the Princess, this is not about me. But as I sit in front of my TV listening to tabloid journalists, and editor's dodging their own responsibility and placing the blame on the drunken driver, or society, or Princess Di, I now feel that the only fair thing that I can do is stand up and make one clear concise statement: Stand up and ask this to the self-appointed spokesman, Steven Coz, the editor of the National Enquirer, and all other tabloids positioning themselves as innocents;

            "The Princess of Wales is dead. And who should we see about that? The driver of the car, the paparazzis, or the magazines and papers who purchase these pictures and make bounty hunters out of photographers? The same magazines, television shows and papers that use their pages creating the news, causing altercations, and then filming them. Well, you must be exhilarated. You bought and paid for one of the greatest news stories of the year. And for your success you should be held accountable.

            But how will we do that? How will we make you responsible for your actions? Not buy your papers or watch your shows, maybe. Pass criminal laws restricting paparazzis? No. Censorship can never be the solution. The only thing worse than an out of control press acting with no regard for decency would be restricting that very same press. Ultimately there is no legislating good taste or doing what is right. And you, sir, and your colleagues, wallow in that fact. Mr. Coz, I watch as you scramble for high ground, saying that you won't purchase these pictures. Pictures of a dying Princess trapped in her car. Well, I am impressed. What ethics.

            Your cover of your magazine this week said "Di Can't Get Enough Sex." It's on the stands still. I also watch as you take your position on CNN, saying as long as there is a market for this then you are just supplying the goods. It's because of the public's insatiable appetite for celebrity. They're to blame, the public is.

            All right. So let's use your argument. There are also thousands of people with an insatiable appetite for crack. The person who supplies that is called a dealer, and if he's caught he goes to jail. A photographer will commit a crime to get compromising pictures and later you merely buy those pictures, absolving yourself of any responsibility. If you weren't hiding behind the profession of journalism, you would be an accomplice to a crime and you would go to jail. I am not singling you out, Mr. Coz, you have made yourself the spokesman. And this involves most press. But you are right about one thing. This is not about celebrity, this is about all of us, Richard Jewell, parents of children killed on Flight 800, everyone.

            But maybe there is something that we can do about you. You and all the editors, television and print, who purchase their news. Two words, "malicious intent." They are two words that every ethical journalist says is the loophole the tabloids hide behind. Those two words exist in a relatively recent Supreme Court decision changing the libel laws. We survived 120 years without them. You change these two words and all journalists are held accountable in a civil trial. One would still have to prove your story untrue, but they wouldn't have to prove the unprovable, what's in your mind. Was it your intent to be malicious? We cannot prove that. They are two words in the law that I will spend every free moment trying to change, and I am well aware of the undertaking, it is no small task.

            Now let's open a discussion about privacy. Not just for celebrities, but for everyone. If an outlet buys pictures and a photographer has committed a crime to get these pictures, then that outlet should be held responsible. Legitimate news sources like the LA Times and network news should draw a clear line in the sand. Do not purchase your news; do not use tabloids as a source. You define the difference between tabloid and legitimate news. Do your job. Inform responsibly. And as for you, Mr. Coz, and your colleagues, you have gone on television and you have washed your hands, and you have placed blame, and you have deflected responsibility, and yet I wonder how you sleep at night. You should be ashamed. Thank you."


   If the dnc dscc or dccc send you mailers, send that link back to them and tell them you won't send money to people who defend democrats who betray progressive principals!

            by daeros on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 03:14:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  mmacdDE, well, well, Faux News by any other (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          name passes the smell test?  I don't think so.  We are known by the company we keep?

      •  Point for Dogs are fuzzy raising man bites dog. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        daeros, CIndyCasella

        My Shepherd agrees, but is a terrible typist so asked to tag on to this comment.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:30:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the Denver Post has covered it.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Heart of the Rockies, daeros, Woody

        More than likely only because it is a local story.

        Just to be clear, the subpoena is for her anonymous source. I had wondered if the local investigators were upset the news was released and hampered the case or just made them look bad.

        Now curious, since it was Holmes' lawyers who wanted the subpoena, what their interest is. They are going for mental illness defense so the psychiatrist's knowledge of Holmes' comments about his homicidal state will become important. How does knowing who revealed the existence of the notebook found in the mail room (so she had not received it) affect their case?

        Further background. The story of the psychiatrist reporting him to the university police (because of his homicidal thought revelations) has been out with the result they had deactivated his ID card. The part about them asking her if he should be brought in for a 72 hour hold did not. She decided against it. IIRC it was over a week before the shooting. I'm not so interested in her liability as whether psychiatrists need more info on homicidal individuals or a contact group to discuss specific cases.  

        Not sure if CO has a version of the Tarasoff ruling (see MB comment below) or if it applies to nonspecified people. It just puzzles me that we go to significant lengths to address possible suicide and seem to treat a homicidal comment with less caution.  Patients are asked if they have suicidal thoughts, a plan (weapons or pills), and they are given hotline numbers and other resources.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:38:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site