Is Time Magazine Done For?

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
The Rove Story, and how he may or may not be the one that leaked Plume's name to the press, is interesting.

But there are already two threads on that. I posted the following on one of them but it was perhaps too off-topic to garner a response.

More interesting is Time's (the company, not the reporters) take on the matter.

In surrendering a reporter's notes, TIME Inc.'s top editor says the rule of law trumps the promise of confidentiality.
Click to expand...

Source

I have no real opinion on that. But, in doing what they did their reporters, all of them, are going to have a very, very difficult time every getting another high-level confidential source to reveal even their shoesize much less something meaty. The source will not trust them to keep it private.

If the reporters gave up their source, they'd be ruined as investagative reporters.

But Time is condeming all it's investagative reporters. Time is condeming itself, IMV. They'll have to switch to full-time coverage of British Royalty, Paris Hilton, and food receipes.

Just my opinion. What's yours?
 
Yes.

It's the end of investigative reporting for Time magazine.

No-one will speak to them again.

I expect some resignations and retirements shortly.
 
Rob Lister said:
I have no real opinion on that. But, in doing what they did their reporters, all of them, are going to have a very, very difficult time every getting another high-level confidential source to reveal even their shoesize much less something meaty. The source will not trust them to keep it private.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. They revealed the source because they were legally compelled to. But in most cases, confidential sources aren't revealing information that is illegal to reveal to journalists, only information that someone doesn't WANT revealed. Under those more common situations, there's no real threat of legal compunction to reveal sources, and so I doubt it will happen.

For those cases where sources are revealing information that IS illegal to reveal, then there will be some damping effect. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Without the credible threat of forcing reporters to reveal sources, there's no mechanism left to enforce legal secrecy, and that cripples our own national interests. I'm not saying insiders should never reveal classified information, but I'm fine with putting a threshold on it: if the source doesn't think that revealing it is important enough to the public good to take some risk in revealing it, then it probably shouldn't become public.
 
Diamond said:
Yes.

It's the end of investigative reporting for Time magazine.

No-one will speak to them again.

I expect some resignations and retirements shortly.
Click to expand...

Time was never much for "investigative reporting".
 
What happened to the days when journalists would sit in jail for days rather than reveal their source?
 
shanek said:
What happened to the days when journalists would sit in jail for days rather than reveal their source?
Click to expand...

People who write for Time or Newsweek are not "journalists".
 
shanek said:
What happened to the days when journalists would sit in jail for days rather than reveal their source?
Click to expand...
There was a report here (Providence, RI) that spoke confidentially. Jim Taricani stood up and paid the price see

Jim Tericani

The main thing is that his contact was a sleeze but he stood by for the integrity of his reporting despite his health risks.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
People who write for Time or Newsweek are not "journalists".
Click to expand...

:dl:


Ummm...I think we would all be interested in your opinion on who is. (Why do I get the feeling Drudge will be on the list?)
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Ummm...I think we would all be interested in your opinion on who is. (Why do I get the feeling Drudge will be on the list?)
Click to expand...

Certainly not Drudge.

Nor anyone on television.

Plenty of mainstream newspaper types are journalists.

Time and Newsweek are People Magazine for college graduates.
 
Re: Re: Is Time Magazine Done For?

Ziggurat said:
I don't agree. They revealed the source because they were legally compelled to. But in most cases, confidential sources aren't revealing information that is illegal to reveal to journalists, only information that someone doesn't WANT revealed. Under those more common situations, there's no real threat of legal compunction to reveal sources, and so I doubt it will happen.
Click to expand...

I think you are exactly backward on this. What matters of national interest that necessitate confidential informants are of very unlikely to prompt a legal demand for those sources? I'd say few and far between. How many of these confidential sources would be willing to risk even that tiny likelihood. To others maybe, but certainly not to Time after this incident (and probably not to Novak either but he's just one guy).

As to whether or not that is good or bad is not the subject. I'm just wondering about Time Mag.
 
OK, just who decided that reporters get special priveleges that the average person doesn't have?

If I know something that relates to a particular legal matter, I can be subpoenaed and required to testify. I have the option to take the 5th ammendment, but if a judge decides to grant me immunity from prosecution (whether I want it or not), I can be impelled to testify, or face a charge of contempt of court.

Now, let's agree that reporters are persons and citizens -- any personal biases aside, they fit this lowest common denominator. They are a part of this society, and should be held as accountable as the rest of us. Somebody tells them something, they should be subject to subpoena the same as the rest of us.

So what about the possibility of abuse by the courts to find out sources? So what. There is just as great a possibility of abuse by the media to use false or unreliable sources against another entity. The media likes to portray itself as a self-policing entity. Yeah, like the FBI doesn't conduct "questionable" operations: it looks after itself. No such thing as police abuse, either: Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny told me, closely corroborrated by the Tooth Fairie.

Reporters and journalists have this impression that they are somehow part of a higher-grade of profession than the average person, and deserve this special treatment. Hogwash. I hold them to the same level of accountability as myself, which is fairly damned high. It's a matter of proof and evidence. If a reporter says a situation exists, they'd better be able to prove it, and document a clear chain of connections to their evidence and sources. Otherwise, it's like religion, where you have to just take it on faith that it's all true.

Welcome to the rest of the world, journalists. It's about time.

Now, let's get started on those priests and confessions.

Beanbag.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Certainly not Drudge.

Nor anyone on television.

Plenty of mainstream newspaper types are journalists.

Time and Newsweek are People Magazine for college graduates.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted.
 
Originally posted by Rob Lister
Just my opinion. What's yours?
Click to expand...
I think it was brilliant that the Editors of Time sat on the evidence
that quite likely would've put Karl Rove in jail and ruined the Bush
campagn. They finally get the idea of letting the people decide,
instead of politicizing the election.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Evasion noted.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was evading. I think he was telling you there are so few of them, it's hardly worth the mentioning.

We just lost a "jounalist," from our local paper, the Sacramento Bee. Diana Greigo Erwin had been a local columnist for years, but the Bee,[/i] for some reason, decided it was time to check on the sources of a lot of her stories. Funny thing is that a lot of the "sources" she quoted turned out to be fabricated, the same situation that got Janet Cooke fired from the Washington Post. Buh-bye, Diana.

Journalism is supposed to be the unbiased publication and examination of the facts of the issues of the day, as well as a review of how they impact the community. That it is now, as it has been in the past, a part of the propaganda mill of mob rule is not a surprise. You're dealing with people who are mercenaries at heart.
 
Roadtoad said:
Journalism is supposed to be the unbiased publication and examination of the facts of the issues of the day, as well as a review of how they impact the community.
Click to expand...

That's a laugh! Ask Thomas Jefferson how unbiased they were in his time.
 
Roadtoad said:
I don't think he was evading. I think he was telling you there are so few of them, it's hardly worth the mentioning.
Click to expand...

Actually, he was. If there are so few of them, then it should have been quite easy to list them.
 
Roadtoad said:
Shanek, that's why I said it was "supposed" to be. I didn't say it was.
Click to expand...

Understood. I just think it's too easy to pine for the bygone days of objective journalism, when in fact that never really existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom