Publics Right to Know

[pegwinn]

Ok I bet I can get at least a rousing five people to weigh in on this.

Does the Public have a right to know anything as it relates to a free and unfettered press?

My take is that reporters use that line to pontificate all the time. They seem to think that "free press" is a free pass. My take on this is that the press exists at the pleasure of the public. I believe that no one is obligated to speak to the press in any form or forum unless by choice. I found nothing in the US Constitution that required "cooperation" with any reporter.

The FOIA OTOH requires disclosure of government activities. Yet recently the unscrupulous press has abused this in an effort to destroy Jack Ryan, they succeeded too. Are we next to find out about Sen Kerry's marriage. Personally I don't care, it isn't my business. As long as it didn't occur "on the clock", so freaking what?

I personally believe the President has the right to get rid of his press secretary and tell teh Washington Press Corps that he will "from time to time issue statements that he feels the public has need to know". Imagine the body count as several hundred reporters simultaneously die of heart failure. Then the White House could simply respond to FOIA requests. So to repeat the question:

Does the Public have a right to know anything as it relates to a free and unfettered press?

 

[freeandfun1]

F*ck no. I can't even know what is going on in my wife's head, why should I get to know what is going on in the President's?

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
F*ck no. I can't even know what is going on in my wife's head, why should I get to know what is going on in the President's?

That would be one only four more to go. Come on y'all

 

[krisy]

I have always found the attitudes of the press to be quite pompass in regards to this issue. They think that we want to know all,when it's them that wants to know all. They are arrogant assholes that don't do their jobs correctly(most of them). I believe there are things that the government does not need to tell us and I don't want to know,especially when it comes to issues of war. I also believe that no one,and I mean no one has an obligation to talk to the Liberal,one sided,piece of crap media.

 

[musicman]

A very funny guy named Gary Burbank does an afternoon radio show here in my hometown. One of his greatest lines is, "Your right to know supercedes your right to exist!"

 

[insein]

This also should pertain to SEALED Divorce documents. The reason they were SEALED by the COURT is because of privacy for the individual and their family. Because the press WANTS to find something in them not because they have a SUSPICION of something in them, they get to have a court order granting it? Doesn't make sense.

For all those that don't know, I'm referring to Jack ryan in Illinois. A left wing activist judge decided that his previously sealed files were public domain.

 

[freeandfun1]

Clinton didn't believe we have a right to know about his medical history (he is the only president that never made public their health history/records).

 

[pegwinn]

Got 5, in record time. YeeHa. Anyway. I was listening to radio when some reporter was blah blah ing about how he was only chasing down the publics right to know. Freaking Amazing.

 

[krisy]

The problem is,most of the time ,the public could give a sh*t! I personally didn't care too much about Clinton's health records. I just saw something on Fox about a murder or something on Sam Donnelson's(so?) ranch. I wonder how he feels about that being all over the news?! I remember listening to Walter C. one time on the radio saying that in wartime,we had a right to know everything. This is where I most strongly disagree.

 

[nycflasher]

I just want to know anytime Bush gets a blowjob and, also, anytime that Laura has unusual stains on her dress.

Other than that, I don't think the public has the right to know ANYTHING that Bush is doing, saying or thinking.

But that's just me.

 

[musicman]

So, basically, you're saying that Bush should get the same horrible and unfair treatment from the press that Clinton did???!!!!!

In Bush's dreams!!!!

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I just want to know anytime Bush gets a blowjob and, also, anytime that Laura has unusual stains on her dress.

Other than that, I don't think the public has the right to know ANYTHING that Bush is doing, saying or thinking.

But that's just me.

This statement shows your ignorance. You ignore the relevance of what happened and why Clinton WAS impeached. He lied to a Grand Jury. His Attorney General convicted and sentenced to prison many Americans that did exactly the same thing under similar circumstances. As Clinton said in his own book, "he did it cuz he could" and the media let him off the hook cuz they are liberal. The totally ignored the relevance just as you totally ignore it.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I just want to know anytime Bush gets a blowjob and, also, anytime that Laura has unusual stains on her dress.

Other than that, I don't think the public has the right to know ANYTHING that Bush is doing, saying or thinking.

But that's just me.

Except that that would be a good MARRIAGE!!!! Not an AFFAIR!!!

 

[777]

If I understand this right, people are mad about the press getting hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records because not everything should be available to the press about a politician's personal life. Then would it not follow that they should have been mad about intrusion into Clinton's private sex life? (not what happened afterwards where he lied to the Grand Jury)

If the Americans think it's wrong for the press to dig deeper into a politician's private sex life then shouldn't it apply to politicians of any party?

 

[DKSuddeth]

The public does indeed have a right to know.......only when it pertains to how the government conducts its business for the american people.

Opening Jack Ryans records should be an abomination in and of itself. For that lack of judgement and discretion I'd vote for Ryan, if I still lived in Illinois.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by 777
If I understand this right, people are mad about the press getting hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records because not everything should be available to the press about a politician's personal life. Then would it not follow that they should have been mad about intrusion into Clinton's private sex life? (not what happened afterwards where he lied to the Grand Jury)

If the Americans think it's wrong for the press to dig deeper into a politician's private sex life then shouldn't it apply to politicians of any party?

What? The entire reason that he was impeached was because he lied to a Grand Jury. Idiot.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by 777
If I understand this right, people are mad about the press getting hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records because not everything should be available to the press about a politician's personal life. Then would it not follow that they should have been mad about intrusion into Clinton's private sex life? (not what happened afterwards where he lied to the Grand Jury)

If the Americans think it's wrong for the press to dig deeper into a politician's private sex life then shouldn't it apply to politicians of any party?

Were you sick the day they taught BASIC court law and proceedings in school?

What Clinton did was called PERJURY.

here is the definition from Law.com

perjury
n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although it is a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

Notice it says "THE CRIME OF"... Clinton KNOWINGLY lied under oath, therefore, he committed a CRIME. CRIMINAL behavior is grounds for impeachment.

 

[pegwinn]

Well, I used the Jack Ryan case as an example of a reporter/paper going over the top. I spoke with a local reporter while sitting in a bar drinking some of Milwaulkes finest.

He was all motivated about his jouralistic ethics and how the public has a right to know. I kept asking him, what right? Point to the constitution and show me.

I asked him if the president or any american was obligated to answer to the press. He thinks they are. He cited how gag orders were unconstitutional. He cited criminal cases I'd never know about if the reporters weren't there. I asked about tabloids and papas-rotsy, he took at deep breath, and another drink.

We went round and round. Then drank round and round. I went home and he took his shiny journalism degree and I guess is still looking for a job.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by pegwinn
Well, I used the Jack Ryan case as an example of a reporter/paper going over the top. I spoke with a local reporter while sitting in a bar drinking some of Milwaulkes finest.

He was all motivated about his jouralistic ethics and how the public has a right to know. I kept asking him, what right? Point to the constitution and show me.

I asked him if the president or any american was obligated to answer to the press. He thinks they are. He cited how gag orders were unconstitutional. He cited criminal cases I'd never know about if the reporters weren't there. I asked about tabloids and papas-rotsy, he took at deep breath, and another drink.

We went round and round. Then drank round and round. I went home and he took his shiny journalism degree and I guess is still looking for a job.

this is the example of how things are completely misconstrued. The PRESS does not have the right to know, the PEOPLE have the right to know. The press is supposed to be the purveyors of truth, yet nowadays there is very little of that without slanted opinion in either direction.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
this is the example of how things are completely misconstrued. The PRESS does not have the right to know, the PEOPLE have the right to know. The press is supposed to be the purveyors of truth, yet nowadays there is very little of that without slanted opinion in either direction.

Cool, what do they have the right to know?
My contention is that we as a nation cannot restrict the press; deep breath ; but, we are not required to cooperate with them either.
So where does the publics right to know stop and your civil liberties begin. If you are the victim of a crime, they will camp out on your door. If you run for office they will claim the right to know every girl you ever tagged (thanks bill). IF you are running a business, they will investigate your practices without much in the way of provocation. Oh well, thanks for the insight.