I do not know abuot anyone else, but I personally feel that newspapers, tv news reporters etc, should not be able to take "anonymous" reports and tips, as they are nothing but hearsay, and most of the time it can be proven to be false too.

Not only that, but all this nonsense in the current society of, officials making anonymous reports because they are not allowed due to security and law to make them otherwise... Most of the time, I honestly believe the so-called "high official anonymous report" is nothing but a pure and outrageuous fabrication. But if it does happen to be true, then I fullt believe that our government needs to step in and arrest the reporters etc for taking the anonymous information, knowing it is illegal to do so, and to do it's (the government) level best to find these "anonymous confessors" and arrest them on treason charges.

That is what used to happen; people were held accountable for their actions and their words, and when someone spoke "anonymously" they were investigated out and then arrested and charged accordingly.

A far as I am concerned, if you are not authorized to speak about something then you need to be prosecuted to the highest extant for doing so, and so should those who take your statement.

you sound like a nazi buddy.. Free speech is a protected right and if someone is to be persecuted for it theyd be stupid not to do it incognito... if the goverment went after the media itd be a disaster for them...Theyve gone against the people enough as it is..Its not an americans duty to serve the or protect the interests of government its the other way around... if our government continues the way it is by systematically eliminating our rights in the name f "national security".. then we will have come to the point where out founding fathers told us its time to eliminate our government and rebuild one that is again of and for th people not the corporation that government had become..now do i see that happening never... but its a simple fact "Being told you are free , does not make you free".. and


and as far as almost all of them bing able to be proven as incorrect .. the entire of news is like that if you are wachting it you should just keep telling yourself theyre lying to me... i was personally involved in multiple incidents that were on the news and EVERy time the story was sensationalized to the point of using incorrect "facts" about the incident... its amazing what one or two changed wrds can do.. being that the person is hiding their identity Someone didnt want them saying what they were saying and itd pretty easy to "PROVE" even an absolute truth as a fabrication if that was ones goal..

So you are saying someone like the guy that brought down Nixon should have been put in jail? Woodward as well? He didn't disclose his anonymous source for 30 years. Interesting concept.

I am not saying take freedom of speach away. If say, a congressman wants to publicly state that he can not stand President Obamma, that is his choice and right. HOWEVER freedom of speech does not include giving out information of any] kind. it is the freedom t talk about your beliefs and opinions, so long as they can not harm another person or group.
Also, speeking about someone elses professional record which is supposed to be a secret is also not covered under freedom of speech, and should be punishable without the person who's record was revealed having to take it into court. Nor is any of what I have said covered by freedom of the press.

I DO however agree with you that 99% of the media is fabricated in t least some way, and in a lot of cases the reporters fabricating that information are guilty of defemation or even outright slander; but are they prosecuted for htis? no. They claim freedom of the presss and when proven to eb wrong about something they claim it was an honest mistake.

Depends on the process in which the person used to "bring down Nixon". I don't know who said what, to whom or how, so I can not give an opinion on that. I CAN say however, that if it was confidential and secret material, that the only legal way he would have had to do so, was to file a report with someone in authority that has the right to that information. Would that be easily done? probably not, but it's still the right way to do it, and the legal way.

With woodward, I believe you are referring to a journalist or reporter of some kind? Or do you mean a lawyer or even a priest?
reporters, journalists, etc do not have the legal right and obligation to withold their sources. A lawyer and a Priest both do, and I believe both, I know in a lawyers case it is true, they both have to disclose if someone says they are going to commit a crime in the future.

With a lawyer, yuo can admit to murder, rape, arson, whatever yuo did, and the lawyer can not do anything other than remove himself as your lawyer (if he is your hired lawyer when you tell him); this holds true for all lawyers who work even in the same office as said lawyer. However, if you go in and say I am going to go rape the little lady down he street this afternoon and then....... the lawyer is legally obligated to call the police and report you.

A priest, has the legal right to withold confessions. I am not sure if they are required to report plans of a crime or not.

I hope this answers your question

I agree

omg I am not the only one?! lol

Nope, I agree too! If you're gonna talk, then have the balls(?) to level up to it personally. Speaking from hiding makes you a coward.

makes you a coward, and makes you dishonest as well. One of the biggest ones that truly peeves me big time is how your military records are private and confidential; releasing someones records can gt you in very serious trouble, yet when a soldier comes into the public eye, their records are "anonymously released" to the entire damn world. I don't care what's going on with the soldier, what they have or have not done, they still have the legal rights to their records being kept private and secret. The person "giving this information" needs to be court-martialed to the fullest extant.

Another big issue of mine, is the "anonymous" releases tot he press formt he white house, and other government agencies. This information has been deemed secret, classified whatever; and most likely has good reasons for being classified as such. If you were to release this information to say the Soviet Union, or China, you would be sentenced to death for Treason. So what is the difference in releasing it to a reporter or journalist which will ltimately end up utting this information in the hands of those we dont want having it.

I personally say, that ANYONE who releases information without the authority to do so, should be tried for treason (punishment varies upon degree of whether it was intentional or accidental release).

the media doesn't seem to check sources anymore either. If anyone says anything against Islam they are quick to be put on a television without the slightest background checks or to see if their stories are correct...like Bridgette Gabriel and Wallid shoebat...two phonies that were made instant celebs by Fox news.

so very true mark. The media is one of the biggest problems we face int his country. They have been allowed to become a "superpower" in themselves, and to do whatever they want to do in the name of freedom of the press.

I have stated many times that the media is not held accountable for anything anymore. Anonymous sources are rarely reliable sources in my opinion but yet their information is continuously reported as fact and taken as gospel truth by the public.

so very true msharmony, so very true!

Move to China if that is what you want.You can watch all the news which is censored by the Government first.Sounds like Nazi tactics to me.

No Thomas itis called the RIGHT to the truth from the news agencies, and not propaganda or outright false stories that werent even blinked at let alone verified as to there truthfullness. If you want science fiction and fantasy, pick up the national enquirer or star, but keep your general papers to the facts and truth! And do NOT publish what is supposed to be a national secret or private.

Yup Nazi esque..

The only difference in ANY media or goverment statements is wich brand of lies you prefer ... its like coke n pepsi.. theyd like to tell you theres a sifference but itm minimal at best...Dont like it dont listen ..

Theyre are plenty of things that were never meant to be shared with the public that does not negate our right to "truth" or at least another version of it ..people will continue to have the right to do and say as they pleasr without persecution as long as free will and freedom exists... and no matter HOW much smarter than us you think you are NOONE had the right to pull all the strings and make the decisions for all of us ...I Was born free and will live or die free and that has nothing to do with being an american its HUMAN right..

Perhaps the back end approach would be better for those who fear a threat to freedom of speech. Start TEACHING people the difference between facts , opinions, fictions, and news stories.

I like the idea .....its seems news stories are a combo of the first three allways.. no matter what is taught different versions of the truth although oposing can both be correct its seems to ba a matter of perspective and opinion... we could never all agree on what was taught and it too would be an issue of argument

Do a little research on Watergate, then get back to us and let us know what you think. I'd like to hear an answer to InvictusV's questions, too.

sorry but the truth can not by definition have more than one meaning. For example, let's say "a home at 555 sycamore street caught fire around 3am this morning. All occupants managed to get out safely, though the house was not able to be saved. Officials contnue to investigate the possibility of arson." Sounds cut and dry, correct?

Now let's just say for the sake of argument, that the town requires by law that all fires be investigated as possible arson, thus it is normal procedure to do so. This does not need to be added to teh news story, as it is common procedure and required by law that the officials do so.. However, by adding that one line, which is undoubtedly true, the officials are investigating because they have to, it makes it sound like there is reason to believe it was a case of arson.

This, in my opinion is wrong, and should be punishable if allowed to happen. All it does is dramatize the situation, and make suggestions that are not based on anything.

My point is, no matter what a jouranlist or reporters personal opinion on the matter may be, they need to stick to the solid facts, and the truth, not embellish it in a way to "make tit more newsworty.