Like rubbernecking past a car wreck, I can't resist octogenarian retired CEO Al Neuharth's weekly column, every Friday in USA Today.Our favorite Jack Kelley enabler opines today that reporters and their lazy -- err, "time-pressed" -- editors should be jailed for protecting all those lying, cowardly, anonymous, whistleblowers. The 84-year-old South Dakota bootstrapper sneers, "any good reporter can get such tips verified, if they're true, by a reliable source willing to be identified."
(Of course, the suntanned manuscript shredder neglects to mention that persuading a source to identify herself publicly doesn't necessarily guarantee publication. Just ask authorized-but-later-dismissed Neuharth biographer Michael Gartner!)
Neuharth always was a jerk. Always will be.
ReplyDeleteA pretty big deal is brewing in Congress regarding a federal shield law – Free Flow of Information Act.
ReplyDeleteIt has passed in the house and kind of stalling in the Senate a bit. But it is supported by both presidential candidates and just about every state's attorney general.
Everything I've read regarding Neuharth (I'm too young to have been in touch with most of his history) has been rather negative in terms of his views on anonymous sources, shield laws, etc.
Is Gannett formally (or informally) supportive of this bill?
Now that we're on the topic... what is the company's track record with supporting journalists' First Amendment rights?
I hear a lot of cases at non-Gannett papers of journalists (particularly photographers but not always) getting in legal trouble for covering something spot news or security related, only to have law enforcement on their ass wanting to review or confiscate the information or photos. Those papers have been extra-supportive of the journalists and backed them legally 100%.
Are there any cases of Gannett following suit?