SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the first-we-need-an-ethics-board-for-politicians dept.
Georgia Republicans Push for State 'Journalism Ethics Board':
Six Republican state representatives in Georgia have moved to create an "ethics board" for journalists that would require news organizations to provide copies of pictures and audio and video recordings of interviews to subjects who request them or risk civil penalty.
The cost of meeting those requests would be paid by the news organizations.
The proposed legislation, House Bill 734, titled the "Ethics in Journalism Act," was sponsored Tuesday by Rep. Andy Welch, who represents the city of McDonough.
The bill would create a board of media professionals and academics that would produce"a canon of ethics" and "develop a voluntary accreditation process in journalism ethics," which would also allow for the investigation and sanctioning of journalists.
This bill isn't really about local news publishers (although they would be censored too) this is about censoring CNN which is headquartered in Atlanta.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @12:21AM (8 children)
What would be the point? You can record it yourself without imposing on the local news. Libel/slander law still works.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:07AM (7 children)
Almost any media outlet will refuse to do the interview if the subject shows up with his own camera crew.
They're not interested in the truth. They have the story already written before they interview anyone; they're just looking for some sound bytes to make the person look like however their story needs them to look. If there's a camera there that they don't control, recording the actual truth, they'll bail.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:36AM (5 children)
Right. And some states require both parties permission for something to be recorded. So you could authorize them but they refuse to authorize you.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:16AM (4 children)
That's only over the phone. There is no such requirement in person. The closest thing is that publishers typically get a release to cover their ass in case a clip gets used in a commercial (rather than just in a straight news story for which there is ample 1st amdt protection). But a private citizen will never need such a thing to make their own recording that they post on youtube or twitter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:55PM (3 children)
False, at least in WA (unless you are press, then you have carte blanche). https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 [wa.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)
Read more carefully, those are all over the telephone or equivalent. Its all about wiretapping. None of that applies in person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:22PM
Wrong. Here is the omitted paragraph dealing with "wiretapping" followed by the one about private conversation:
If paragraph (b) was about wiretapping, paragraph (a) is redundant, and it is a basic foundation of statutory construction that legislatures do not engage in useless acts such as redundancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation [wikipedia.org] See: Rule against surplusage
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @10:45PM
Some of those exceptions are funny, how the hell do you know someone's going to threaten you or that it's a harrasing phone call beforehand, so you can set up your recording device?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 06 2019, @03:54AM
And what's the problem with that?