(2007-10-15) — Under a measure facing certain approval in Congress, journalists stand to gain increased protection for hiding the sources of their stories, and their bosses would gain support for their practice of disguising the actual number of people who read, watch or listen to those reports.
“This is a great victory for the free press,” said an unnamed top-ranking official at the Secret Society of Professional Journalists. “The people have a right to be shielded from knowing who generates the news, and our advertisers deserve protection from the pain of our actual circulation and audience numbers. This bill ensures that the news will continue to flow freely from unknown sources to undisclosed consumers.”
The measure would also protect from prosecution the anonymous sources of non-professional journalists who make “substantial income” from news gathering.
The “substantial income” clause ensures that the cloak of secrecy would extend to an estimated four bloggers.
8 responses so far ↓
1 JamesonLewis3rd // Oct 15, 2007 at 7:10 am
God Bless America
2 onlineanalyst // Oct 15, 2007 at 7:38 am
This is Congress’s attempt to make us Weakly Readers?
3 Maggie // Oct 15, 2007 at 8:12 am
Good one ‘Online’.
Personally, I’m a ’sicklical reader’.
4 Maggie // Oct 15, 2007 at 8:15 am
Oh, btw……Good Morning All!
5 gafisher // Oct 15, 2007 at 10:34 am
“A large number of readers” could be under a hundred in 72-point type. I have my doubts advertisers will accept rates based on a (: |: ): “smiley face” system.
6 da Bunny // Oct 15, 2007 at 10:48 am
“our advertisers deserve protection from the pain of our actual circulation and audience numbers.”
…gotta be able to keep gouging the advertisers no matter how many people are actually being exposed to their ads.
7 prettyold // Oct 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I read the story on the link in Scott’s satire,and it really read like ….Satire.Our “lawmakers ” have turned into a huge unfunny joke.A Republican says “this is a pinch me moment.”
So this means any media can claim anything ,with NO way to ever prove or disprove the story. I guess I just don’t get it ,didn’t the Supreme Court just say this is unconstitutional?
Will this mean Rush, Hannity and O’Reilly won’t have to prove any of their stories ,either?
8 prettyold // Oct 15, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The nation’s biggest newspapers are frantic ,because of loss of readers and loss of advertising. I think this bill will mean no one will read newspapers from now on ,because we will all know none of it is true ,instead of only about half .
I will miss the comics.
You must log in to post a comment.