....August 24, 2:51 PM
 
 
 
Choppergate & Freedom Of The Press

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Choppergate, the scandal that has taken the steam out of the Spitzer Steamroller, is threatening to cross into territory a lot more treacherous than the muck and mire of Albany politics.

The ongoing and expanding investigation into the actions of Governor Eliot Spitzer’s staff use of State police to track and embarrass the Senate Majority Leader for alleged misuse of State helicopters and police cars, is moving in the direction of taking aim at the fundamental freedom of the press.

The State Senate Ethics Commission, one of several bodies involved in this latest political free-for-all, has just issued a subpoena for James Odato of the Albany Times Union asking for all of the reporters documents including emails, notes and records, in connection with his reporting which broke the original story suggesting Bruno was misusing State-owned vehicles.

The story of Choppergate has been told and retold and will continue to play itself out on the pages of the State’s newspapers, interfering with the Governor’s ability to fulfill his promise to reform Albany.

That is not what concerns us here.

The press and its freedom to gather and report the news is a fundamental backbone of a free society. If a reporter can’t protect his sources, he can’t effectively gather all the information to accurately report to the people. Fear of subpoena and disclosure will cause confidential informants to withdraw further into the shadows.

Deep Throat believed that Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and the Washington Post would protect his identity and our nation’s history was changed as the story led to the downfall of Richard Nixon and all the president’s men.

A brave, noble and fearless Judith Miller of the New York Times spent six moths in jail in 2005 for contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. The subpoena alleged Miller met with an unnamed government official, later revealed to be “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, after Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, published an op-ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for “twisting” intelligence to justify war in Iraq.

Although never instrumental in the reporting of the Plame – Wilson affair, Miller became a modern day symbol to journalists everywhere. The need to protect your confidential source at all costs is a basic rule of good reporting and anchors freedom of the press as guarenteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The need for a “Shield Law” protecting reporters from government or court subpoena of their work is not an old one. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a five to four decision that the press did not have a Constitutional right of protection from revealing confidential information in court. The court acknowledged, however, that the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”

Thirty-two states now have Shield Law protections. Liberal New York, has none.

Many believe that Congress should enact a federal shield law, or at least a federal standard pursuant to which the rights of journalists are clearly defined. The differences between states’ laws has also raised questions regarding which laws apply concerning national reporting. Proponents of shield laws argue that they ensure that news gatherers may do their jobs to their fullest ability and that they help avoid a dichotomy between state laws and journalistic ethics. They also argue that a federal shield law should exist to eliminate contradictions between state laws.

But we are keenly aware of the speed of Congress and their ability to get the job done. So while we call upon our friends on the Hill to bring a Shield Law to protect freedom of the press, at the same time we look to New York State and ask our moribund legislature to act.

While the likelihood of achieving meaningful results in Congress or the NYS Legislature is minimal to none, this writer, this paper, news outlets and people everywhere should know which legislators support a truly free press.

In the meantime, it will take the rigorous defense of reporter’s freedoms by the nation’s news media and the wisdom of bodies like the State Ethics Commission and the courts to either sidestep the conflict or find judicial precedents to avoid punishing journalists for doing their job.

Yes, we want the full story on Choppergate. But we believe the story can best be told by a truly free press and not by a politicized State Commission.

It is time for those of good will to rethink the subpoena of journalists’ work product.

Write on!

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

Serial Rapists Terrorize Southeast Queens

World’s Fair Book Finds Missing Pieces

Willets Point Seeks Recommendations

Supreme Court Muddles State Gun Law

Home Run For Queens Boys And Girls Club

Assemblywoman Hit By Car

Candidates Get Ready To Rumble

Domestic Violence Center Opens In Queens

Queens Family Mourns Loss Of Soldier

Cemetery Buried In Property Debate

Recent Hate Crimes Spur Local Reaction

Queens Reacts To Passing Of City Budget

Cut The Cost And Time Of Transportation

Kitten Looks For A Nice Home

More Than Two Ways to Begin Political Career

Suicide Jumper

Queens Parents Are Happy With Schools

Parking Loss Due To Bike Lane Debated

Teacher Accused Of Abusing Student

Cop Impersonator Accused of Rape

Queens Schools Fail Arts Requirements

Politico Served With Civil Suit

Future of Day Care Under The Scope

 
 
Majority Opposes School Placement on Race Alone

By HENRY STERN




A Quinniapac University poll has shown that a 3-1 majority of Americans support the June 28 decision of the Supreme Court that pupils cannot be denied admission to a public school solely because of their race. The court decision was 5-4, with the four liberal justices dissenting. Judge Anthony Kennedy provided the swing vote, as he often does. He joined Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito in the result, but not in their entire opinions.

The public approved by a vote of 45-37 percent the performance of the Supreme Court, which is close to the historic low for that court. They disapproved, however, by a heavy 64-29 margin, the job President Bush is doing. That result is in accord with other nationwide polls on the President’s popularity at this time.

Congress received a 70-20 disapproval rating, the lowest score it ever received, in this poll. Although the Democrats control both the Senate and the House, the Democratic voters polled expressed disapproval of Congress by 67-23. Republicans expressed disapproval by 70-22, and independents by 72-17.

“Many liberals were outraged by the recent school desegregation decision, calling it a retreat from Brown v. Board of Education. But almost three-fourths of voters approved,” said Maurice Carroll. director of the Quinniapac University Polling Institute. Mr. Carroll is well regarded for his work as a long-time political reporter for the New York Times.

On other issues, the poll found public support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade establishing a woman’s right to an abortion, and disapproval of the war in Iraq. These questions showed a wide variance based on political views, with Republicans more likely to oppose Roe v. Wade and support the war, while most Democrats took the opposite view on both issues.

The last question, out of 39 in the poll, read as follows: “As you know, the Supreme Court recently ruled that public schools may not consider an individual’s race when deciding which students are assigned to specific schools. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling?”

The results: Total 71 percent agree, 24 percent disagree; Republicans 79-17, Democrats 64-30; Independents 71-24; Men 71-24; Women 71-24.

Although the Quinniapac poll is usually covered by New York newspapers, there was no mention of these poll results in any of the five dailies we saw. This unusual outcome has led some to wonder whether the politicallly incorrect results altered the extent of the press coverage.

We did find, however, an attack on the poll by Jon Cohen in a column in the Washington Post: Cohen says: “Quinniapac’s question asked respondents whether race should be a factor in school assignments, and in the absence of an alternative, few said it should. What was shown in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll is that giving some context to the court’s decision yielded more nuance and a different result.

“In the poll, one primary criticism of the court ruling was included, namely that the decision would be a setback for integration efforts. In response, 56 percent of all respondents said they disapproved of the court ruling in the school race case; 40 percent approved. Republicans and independents were evenly split on the decision, while nearly 7 in 10 Democrats were lined up against it.

The fact is that Mr. Justice Kennedy, the decider in this case, affirmed the importance of school integration and explored other techniques that could be used to foster it other than assigning students to schools on the sole basis of their race.

In fact, there are many constitutional ways to promote integration: zoning, the location of new schools, magnet programs in particular schools, and voluntary bussing. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the Seattle case is supportive of other state initiatives to prevent racial discrimination and resegregation, which he rightly deplores.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a wonderful victory for the principle of “Equal Justice Under Law,” the motto engraved on the pediment of the neo-classical courthouse in Washington.

The conclusion we draw from the words of most of the justices is that Brown is alive and well, probably healthier than Roe v. Wade, whose future may depend on the 2008 Presidential election. Justice Kennedy and the Chief Justice have made clear their attachment to Brown. Those who would reverse that historic landmark would be highly unlikely to be nominated by a future President, or to receive Senate confirmation if their names were submitted.

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court is as polarized as it appears to be. During Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearings, the hope was widely expressed that the new Chief Justice, a relatively young man of apparently genial disposition, would help to bring different points of view together in a more congenial court. As of the summer of 2007, that goal seems no closer to being reached.

StarQuest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.