March 24, 2005

NEXT POST
Terri Schiavo Can't help it. I have to say something about this case: What are people thinking? I believe in our legal system, faulty though it may be sometimes. This case has dragged on for more years than I've been in this city, and, although I know how difficult watching your loved one die is, how much more difficult can it be to see her suffer needlessly for years without hope of death's release? Just so my cards are on the table: I am a Republican; I am for protecting the life of an unborn child; I am a woman, a mother, a daughter, a grandchild as well as a grandmother. And I have an informed take on this situation. My maternal grandmother had an inoperable brain tumor. My uncle (her son) was a surgeon. My grandmother decided she wanted no heroic measures, including feeding tubes, water, etc., when her tumor progressed to a certain point, where her quality of life ceased to exist. What is quality of life? Her ability to communicate, when pain killers were so necessary that they rendered her insensible most of the time; when there was no hope of a return to "normal." I sat with my grandmother every day in her home, where she elected to die. She basically starved to death, as is the case with Schiavo. I know my grandmother felt no pain, nor did she suffer in any other way. I suffered. It was harder to watch this woman I loved die than anything I'd been through until that moment. But it was her decision. She weighed 40 pounds when she died, six weeks after refusing all food and water--something the doctors had said was impossible. The night before she died, she sat up in bed and begged my (deceased) grandfather to come and get her. He did the next morning. What Schiavo has gone through with the court wranglings of her misguided parents is the barbarous act here. Would you really want to live in a home, unable to communicate, your cerebrum gone, and the usual necessary indignities of that kind of life being suffered, if you could even know it, on a daily basis? President Bush, Governor Bush, get out of this. It is none of your business. Thank God for the courts who had the great sense and humanity to deny the reinsertion of this poor woman's feeding tube. What's the problem? Death? For some of us who know where our death will lead, we have no fear of it. As for the unbelievable charge by her parents that Schiavo's dying will damn her to hell...my dear people, God is merciful. I suggest you look to your own souls and leave your daughter's to God. Read John Donne's "Death Be Not Proud." Death has been conquered, and this Sunday we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ who proved it was so. If this offends, I'm sorry. I can do no more with this blog than state my beliefs which have been proven to me to be absolutely true over more than 30 years now in the face of terrors unimaginable to most, death threats, predictions of my own impending death (highly exaggerated it would seem), and other more normal trials and tribulations which I share with most of the human race. I am not afraid of death. I wish those who are would allow Terri the freedom of choice they would wish for themselves.
PREVIOUS POST
The Government, the Courts, and You Quote of the day: "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." --Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787. I hope everyone has caught the news lately. Fascinating stuff happening, and most of it will have great impact on our lives...if not now, then soon. Did you read that the courts recently determined bloggers, i.e., people like me, are not to be afforded the same protections under the law that "real journalists" are afforded? That applies even if you happen to be regularly employed as one in another area of journalism. We, bloggers that is, are being forced to reveal sources that other journalists would not have to. (See Apple Computer v. Doe No. 1 et al and the following appeals.) Don't get me wrong. Too many times journalists hide behind "unnamed" or "confidential sources" to say and report anything. However, I'm speaking here of legitimate journalistic practices as taught at say...Columbia? So, let's assume that some bloggers are legitimate journalists following in the best ethical traditions of the profession. It would then seem that if they write like journalists, even if they happen to write what are now considered "blogs," and they act like ethical journalists, then they should be accorded the same Constitutional rights and legal protections, with their attendant legal penalties, as "working" journalists. This, according to the courts, is not to be. Their logic seems based on a faulty foundation. All bloggers are not journalists; Keith Olbermann writes a blog; therefore, Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. Please. (I just picked Olbermann's name out of the air; I could have picked Dan Abrams or anyone else.) I would agree that some standards of journalism should be applied to certain kinds of blogs. (There are different kinds, you know.) A diarist, for example, should not to be held to the same standards as someone writing an investigative piece for the Wall Street Journal. However, bloggers who comment on current events, politics, other topics which would normally fall within the scope of any reputable newspaper, e.g., reviews, op-ed pieces, features, gossip columns, etc., should be aware of the ethical norms for those kinds of topics and follow certain guidelines, such as: libel laws and how they apply, quoting sources accurately, and not engaging in vitriol for the fun of it. But to paint all bloggers as non-journalists regardless of topic or writing quality smacks of paternalism. If withdrawing protections of free speech and free press from bloggers is Constitutional, (please refer to my piece on bloggers as the new journalists, much as the scandal sheets of the 18th Century referred to in William Safire's novel, The Scandalmongers), then are we also subject to the same tort laws which govern such things as libel? It seems to me that the courts can't have it both ways: Either distinctions with public standards for any blogger who want to be accorded "journalist" status need to be decided, defined, and disseminated widely, or bloggers in general should be given the First Amendment Rights of free speech, without worrying about the freedom of the press restrictions and privileges. Then to add to the complexity of the conundrum along comes a Pennsylvania civil case in which a newspaper journalist accurately quoting slanderous remarks of a borough councilman against another councilman and a mayor is sued, along with his paper. The lower court judge said the borough councilman owed the other two men money, but said that the paper and its reporter were not liable under a widely accepted "neutral reporting privilege" which allows members of the media to report a credible public person's defamatory remarks, as long as those remarks are conveyed neutrally and accurately. (Source: The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ), AP article, "Justices Let Stand Ruling Rejecting Journalist Privilege," March 28, 2005.) The two allegedly aggrieved men appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which overturned the lower court's ruling. The Court stated that "no such privilege exists under U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions," and ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard..." (Same source.) The newspaper appealed the case, now called Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Wolfe, to the U. S. Supreme Court which allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. That ruling "asserted that journalists lack constitutional protections allowing them to safely report defamatory comments made by public figures, even when the comments are described in a neutral way." (Same source.) So as things now stand, journalists, i.e., by definition non-bloggers, in quoting the slanderous remarks by both sides of a controversy may now find themselves guilty of the defamatory statements they quoted. It is yet to be decided whether or not the standard of "actual malice" should also be applied and what that verdict will yield. Excuse me. How are these rulings possible? If I am a reporter covering an election and report potentially slanderous claims one candidate makes against the other candidate or candidates, and I then turn around and give the other side their chance to rebut, and they do, and I report their rebuttal remarks exactly, am I then to worry about whether I am going to be sued for their slanders or even libel because I accurately reported their remarks? Preposterous, right? Not anymore. Does anyone remember the CBS debacle concerning certain falsified documents regarding President Bush's service record? Who broke the story that the documents were false? A blogger. But now the blogger is not accorded the status of journalist, while the reporters involved in the false reporting are still considered journalists. I'm feeling like I've been on a merry-go-round too long...a bit queasy. The Congress takes a civil case away from the state courts, puts it into the federal system, only to have the lower courts upheld. Then we see it begin again with even less credible claims than before. Anyone recognize the Schiavo case? And I thought it was all over, but I was wrong. More today. My point is, if I can stop reeling long enough to sharpen it, that lines are being blurred that should not be. Definitions, duties, decisions become a gumbo of wrong-thinking by people whose responsibilities for those actions lie elsewhere. Courts making laws, lawmakers acting like courts on no evidence but emotion, and logic and reason are out the door with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being dragged out with them. Thomas Jefferson warned: "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."--Letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820.

I'm a freelance consultant, writer, Jill of all trades, master of some, and a rest stop.

Recent Comments