Newspapers Cut Wikileaks Out of Shield Law 602
An anonymous reader writes "The US press has been pushing for a (much needed) federal shield law, that would allow reporters to protect their sources. It's been something of a political struggle for a few years now, and things were getting close when Wikileaks suddenly got a bunch of attention for leaking all those Afghan war documents. Suddenly, the politicians involved started working on an amendment that would specifically carve out an exception for Wikileaks so that it would not be covered by such a shield law. And, now, The First Amendment Center is condemning the newspaper industry for throwing Wikileaks under the bus, as many in the industry are supporting this new amendment, and saying that Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'"
LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.
Did the news industry forget what journalism is?
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism ain't what it used to be (Score:2, Insightful)
Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
...do journalists need special bonus rights over and above the standard package?
What is the problem to which this is the solution?
Thin end of the wedge (Score:5, Insightful)
If these protections - like being able to film cops at demonstrations - apply only to "accredited journalists" (or whatever you want to call them) then how long will it be before onerous demands are required to gain accreditation?
I understand in some ways why they want to a closed shop and shut out bloggers and other herberts who they perceive as amateurs. But, so the proverb says, be careful what you ask for - you might just get it.
Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, a number of years ago.
Just shy of 9 years ago by my count.
Ugh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is unfuckingbelievable. The so-called journalists offering up Wikileaks as a sacrificial lamb should be ashamed of themselves.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm....wikileaks is foreign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't forget. They all chose to pretend that it means something else. And by their definition, Wikileaks is most definitely not journalism. Wikileaks has never mentioned Lady Gaga even once! On a similar note, I highly recommend this from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine-aimed-at-ad,17950/ [theonion.com]
Re:Journalism ain't what it used to be (Score:2, Insightful)
The only ones who actually seem to point out the inconsistencies in politicians anymore are the comedians.
Journalists are too worried about getting their access and privileges denied to do anything other than spout the party line for whichever network they're on.
Those dirty weasels. (Score:2, Insightful)
I give up... I'm leaving the country. Europe, here I come. Freedom of speech and the press was really all America had going for it anymore... now we're eroding that as well.
It's all about control (Score:5, Insightful)
Our "friends" at the newspapers like it when they're allowed to keep information from the public and then publish it for the sensationalism. To have someone else horn in on their territory is not to be accepted. In the last 20 years I've seen the "news" business go from fact driven reports to "newstainment". I'd rather read the information that Wikileaks puts on their website and make my own decisions based on the FACTS. Wikileaks is more of a journalist trying to put out the information they get so that we aren't keep in the dark by politicians, TV news monkeys, and the "We'll do whatever our government tells us to do" newspapers.
Apologies for the rant; I just get a little P.O.ed when the big guys are trying to squish the little guys who are willing to show us what's really going on.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism is doing what your corporate sponsors tell you to say.
Keep the voters split and controllable by using hot point issues.
Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave (Score:1, Insightful)
These laws are designed to protect sources, and yet they want to exempt a specific organization? If you allow this, you give the government the ability to do it to anyone at anytime. Your shield law becomes a useless piece of paper. All the government would have to do is claim you are threatening national security and what judge in their right mind would not see this as the reason why Wikileaks was exempted and claim precedence? Our government should not be afraid of Wikileaks. Part of why we have a country is because a single person/organization told us we couldn't print things they didn't like, and we will allow it now?
Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalists are granted specific rights which others do not receive. For example, they have the right not to reveal the sources of their information. This is critical to their ability to report on sensitive issues where whistleblowers wish to remain anonymous. Other people can be forced to testify, so long as it isn't against themselves or their spouses, and be held in contempt of court if they refuse. There are other such rights, but I won't go through them all right now. The point is that this shield law is one such right.
Journalists also have additional responsibilities to go along with this. For example, a journalist is expected not to reveal information that is a threat to national security, they are required to protect the identities of minors, and so on. Regular people don't have such restrictions, either.
The logic here is that these are special privileges granted to journalists, and that bloggers and sites like wikileaks do not qualify for them. If everyone who puts up a post about what they had for lunch is suddenly a journalist, then everyone will have those privileges. But those privileges are not intended for everyone, and if everyone has them, they are going to get in the way. Then they are going to get taken away from everyone, including the real journalists.
In an alternate historical timeline (Score:5, Insightful)
"Journalism" today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Journalism ain't what it used to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it seems that to most of the industry, it's about finding out what trouble Lindsay Lohan will get into next.
Well, technically that is actually journalism. Just not very useful journalism. I think you're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses. There has always been yellow journalism, gossip rags, propaganda sheets, etc. It's not like all journalism in the past was a noble effort to advance the public interest.
No no no. (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea is flawed. There should be no special rights for journalists.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thin end of the wedge (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how you reconcile "free press" with the notion of having to apply for a permit to be a member of the press? It's a little like having freedom of religion, but you have to go register to be a member of one of a group of "approved" churches.
Re:Gutless Cowards (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, maybe they're not cowardly, they just don't believe in the same things that you do.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Journalism" today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, the blogger chooses to blog about local political corruption, or the abuses they witness commited by local police, why should they not be accorded the same priveleges and held to the same responsibilities? What differentitates someone who investigates for The Daily Rag from someone who investigates and publishes on his personal blog? How is a newspaper (or Time Magazine, or the WSJ) fundamentally different from a collective of bloggers who have organized to publish information on abuse, corruption, or wartime errors? (I'm not saying that Wikileaks is any of these.)
Mod Parent Up. (Score:3, Insightful)
This.
Wikileaks is not journalism. It has its value, certainly. In some ways it's complimentary to traditional journalism; in other ways it's essentially supplanted or usurped roles held by traditional journalism. But it's not the same thing.
It has freedoms and advantages journalists don't; conversely, it's in our best interest as a society that journalists have some additional protections that the rest of us that aren't journalists don't need. Hell, dictionary.com publishes a lot of information/documents I find useful, but it's not a journalist and doesn't need this shield law either.
Let's also not forget that the greater freedom Wikileaks enjoys also means less checks on its power. Maybe Julian Assange is the second coming of the religious figure of your choice and he'd never allow anything to be published that isn't true or misleading, but that doesn't mean that (insert name of person associated with political group or religious group that you dislike) won't create WhateverLeaks tomorrow and "leak" a bunch of bogus documents with the same freedoms. Our systems of law need to plan for the worst among us as well as the best.
But this is Slashdot, where anything related to Wikileaks mostly qualifies for knee-jerk support or condemnation, as appropriate, rather than any kind of rational analysis.
There's precident (Score:4, Insightful)
In many jurisdictions you require a permit to own a gun. You require additional tax stamps to purchase certain kinds of guns as well in all jurisdictions. This has been ruled to be ok per the second amendment. Regulating isn't restricting according to the court.
Now perhaps you disagree, but then perhaps you disagree only in the case of speech. However you can see where this stuff starts sneaking in. When you start trying to do end runs around the Constitution in one area, it establishes precedent to do so in other areas.
Re:Thin end of the wedge (Score:5, Insightful)
"Shield Law" IS special rights for certain people (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of funny to see someone write about how the "shield law" is "much needed" and complain that it won't apply to everyone in the same paragraph. The whole point of a "shield law" is to provide special rights for a limited set of people.
For regular folks, if the cops have reason to believe that you know something about a crime, you'll get subpoenaed and required to testify, under penalty of perjury, potentially against your will. Journalists seem to think they ought to be exempt from the regular laws.
You can't give everyone an exemption or they'll claim they were "reporting" when they drunkenly bragged that they knew who killed Mr. Body. That's the problem with the shield law idea.
Journalists are cowards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame on the "journalists" for this. They obviously do not understand the principals they rely on.
Re:It's all about control (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there's always a "control" on the FACTS. Wikileaks doesn't have all of the FACTS either.
The reality is that there's never enough time to gather all the facts. There's just too much information. Even in scientific pursuits, there's almost always more data than you can reliably capture. Someone has to make a judgment call about what the "relevant" facts are and hopefully someone informed and intelligent can make that decision and draw some useful information that can be made understandable to the general public.
That's what I usually hope for in journalism. Unfortunately, I find that when there's an article about something I'm fairly well informed on, that neither the FACTS, nor the information presented are very close to what I see as reality. It usually makes me wonder if the things that I'm not all that well informed of have a similar level of accuracy in the mainstream journalistic outlets.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is what Wikileaks journalism? TFW says - Journalism is the investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience.
Wikileaks takes documents that are provided to them, often stolen and just throws them up on a website without investigation or reporting.
They edited the video of the Apache so it'd fit their worldview. They are less journalistic than Drudge or Fark.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its really time the US has a political revolution. We need to stop looking at democracy and a republic as the end but rather think of them as starting points for a truly free government, one based on self-government of each individual, work to cut out the government.
The idea that the US is not fundamentally flawed is naive, we need real debates over real things.
It's one of many continual laments (Score:5, Insightful)
People do not study their history well, they learn maybe about major events, not about how people actually lived, and so they repeat bullshit over and over. As such a lot of people tend to be Neverwases. They look back to the good old days, where crime was low, people respected their elders, the press was honest and life was grand. You know, a past that never was.
Yellow journalism has been the norm for a long time. There are publications that are better, and periods where things over all improve because of some inspiring people, but yellow journalism is the norm.
But people don't study their history so things are always "getting worse." The press is "worse" now than ever (even though there is more independent journalism), crime is "worse" (though is has been trending down for like 4 decades), kids are lazy, people are stupid, music is bad, etc, etc, etc. All shit that more or less every generation has said and it has always been bullshit.
Re:Ummmm....wikileaks is foreign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't control so much as they keep them balkanized.
The religious people historically worked on social justice issues-- but they are all divided over abortion and gay marriage.
The conservatives historically held the lid on prices-- but they are all divided over abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization.
Every issue comes down to 50/50 decisions making it very easy for corporations to
a) drop a little dirt to kill a candidate they don't like.
b) drop a little money to support a candidate they do like.
Heck, the corporations *prepare* as high as 70% of the "news" articles for some main stream news shows these days.
They hand the pre-filmed, scripted article they made to the news show and the news show runs it without telling you it is really an advertisement.
The top 1% of the population is taking 10x the money it was 20 years ago and even poor people losing their houses are voting to "lower taxes" because they have been convinced they are blood brothers with the wealthy. It's crazy.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'"
Considering what "journalism" has become, this is actually a compliment.
Re:Thin end of the wedge (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a slippery slope. Do we extend the privileges of police officers to private security firms next? Should we also extend privileges to private debt collectors? I'd rather nobody gets special rights.
Re:There's precident (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that there are plenty of examples where the rights in both the 1st and 2nd amendments are limited by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.
But you have to understand what "abridge" means in this context. It means simply to modify by reduction, but to lessen. It's possible to put limits on a thing without reducing its power or value. In fact, it's possible to put limits on a thing that increase its power and value. The question is in who gets to define what increases are of value, and what limits cause those increases.
If the government says "only those who register as journalists will be afforded special protection", that increases the value of the freedom of the press. If it says "only those who I say are journalists will be afforded special protection" then it lessens it.
None of this is relevant to Wikileaks, who are not journalists but anarchists, and who completely disregarded safety and morality when they refused to use safe and legal means to release the information they had illegally obtained. There is a procedure for declassifying improperly classified documents; and the information in many of those documents was improperly classified; but the rest of the information was properly and rightly classified, and releasing it has caused great harm and possibly the unnecessary loss of life. Wikileaks, who are not in any sort of legal authority anywhere, did not have any right to put anyone in danger.
Nor should this be relevant to journalists, since it should be illegal for them to do such a thing as well. The laws for declassifying improperly classified documents already protect anyone seeking such declassification from any sort of retaliation, so there is no reason for someone trying to get it done to avoid trying, and if they are denied, then they get to report on that, knowing that the coverup is always more damaging than the crime.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Next bond election look at the bonds.
"Vote for getting this neato service from the government"
"Vote for more police"
"Vote for candy for children"
Sounds good- but voting for a bond automatically generates a tax obligation. they don't even have to have a vote to increase your taxes. Every bond you vote for increases your taxes for them.
Re:"Shield Law" IS special rights for certain peop (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the right to a free press.
Where did it say you have the right to aid and abet crime to develop your stories?
You didn't. So you can be held in contempt, i.e., jailed while you refuse to reveal your accomplices/sources, for years, if the police think you got the story from a criminal.
In lieu of a shield law we have a mish-mash of case law that may or may not be rational across jurisdictions and may or may not cover a general set of cases that have not yet occurred.
Some people think this is a hole in the right to a free press, and are trying to plug it.
But not too much, because clearly there are criminals, like Assange, who will masquerade as "journalists" to commit their crimes. They should also look at not allowing protection for actual aiding and abetting, so we don't end up with a class of journalists who commit crimes in order to get stories on them (you [comicbookreligion.com] hear [images-amazon.com] me [comicsreporter.com], Spider-Man [southwillard.com]!?).
Re:Mod Parent Up. (Score:4, Insightful)
that doesn't mean that (insert name of person associated with political group or religious group that you dislike) won't create WhateverLeaks tomorrow and "leak" a bunch of bogus documents with the same freedoms.
And that would be unthinkably worse-than-a-war horrible because...?
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because yuo backed up your argument(!) by reaching for your gun.
There exists a Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States for PRECISELY this reason. If/When the government is no longer under civilian control, we have the guaranteed right to rebel.
This is intrinsic to being an American, and should not need explaining, even on a 'geek site' like slashdot.
Re:"Shield Law" IS special rights for certain peop (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't give everyone an exemption
It would be almost like you had to give everyone a set of clearly enumerated rights, and that would take some kind of bill.
Re:"Journalism" today (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out a really important one... "Copy anything off a well-known blog."
This is what annoys me the most... They are claiming that Wikileaks doesn't deserve protection because it's not "journalism", and yet the mainstream press thinks journalism is "copy shit off the web with zero fact-checking". Just think about the woman who was fired because some blog re-cut her speech so she sounded racist. Did *anyone* check that before airing it? No.
It's so easy to prank the media it's not even funny. All you have to do is put some story onto a well-trafficked-blog and five minutes later CNN is reporting it as news. And then it's in the paper the next day. I'd be willing to be a good amount that at least 10% of the news you read/hear/see each day is false, or at least substantially incorrect because no checking is done, it's just a race to scoop the other guy for ratings/readership.
No wonder everyone believes Faux News/Glenn Beck. If you see it on TV, it must be true!
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
He's talking about the WTC bombing.
Re:Why... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, they aren't. Journalists get thrown in jail every now and then for refusing to testify in court. Journalists neither have nor deserve no more rights than the rest of us have. No person, by virtue of his vocation, should have greater rights than anyone else.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it amusing that this comment would get modded up without any sources or links being cited. Meaning, mods have done zero confirmatory investigation before "doing their job."
Not to say it didn't actually happen, just sayin'...
A mod of interesting does not imply truth. Its just interesting.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
True self-government cannot happen because of simply a demise of a previous power or by chaotic events, it can only happen by the gradual reduction in the role of the state which ends in the state being abolished.
Somalia was never a self-governed state, it was ruled by gangs and the like and yes, if you look at pre anarchy and post anarchy Somalia you will see that the people there were much, much, much, much better off without the central authority. The idea that chaos can bring true order is laughable at best and a stateless society may not ever be fully realized, but reductions of the state is possible to a minimal-state society until (if possible) the entirety is self-governed. Myself I do not think that a fully-self governed state is possible within the next 300 years, but I do think that, for the time being, governments must get smaller to only protect against force and fraud, that, is the next step.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your eloquence does much to convince others of the true depth of your intellect.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's sad is that you think the answer to people who live in poor conditions is not to help them raise themselves out of those positions, but to vote for the hand puppet you approve of who will take from others to give to them. You're no better than those you criticize.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent poster is pretty much on target. Remember we were revolting against a government at the time and saw that civilians needed weapons to keep the government in line. Recall that jefferson thought we would have a mini revolution every couple generations.
However, I think we haved reached a point in weapon cost and technology where private individuals don't stand a chance, even in large masses.
Recall the apache helicopter footage- they were hitting people from a mile away. Apache's shooting "effective" range is close to 3 miles. And they have infravision capabilities beyond that of the populace these days so they can see you at night in heavy bushes.
Private weapons might help against an oppressive government some, but unless the military and national guard throws in with you, you are toast.
When you combine this with continuous surveillance by the government, even if a group gets started they can backtrack you.
As long as the government allows people religious, artistic, and sexual freedom, they are unlikely to revolt and more likely to just find one of the top berths. There is no need for 80% of the population to have democracy as long as you leave those issues alone.
Re:"Journalism" today (Score:5, Insightful)
and that's why the best news program on tv is a fucking comedy show, they don't hide it
Yes. It's also why, as an American myself, I get news about my own country from foreign sources. Generally Canada and the BBC, for the most part. "Freedom of the Press" has been re-interpreted to mean "we have the freedom to say whatever the FUCK we want and call it 'news' and you can't do a God damned thing about it, you sheep.'" And yes, it does piss me off that I get more reasoned, more accurate, more truthful information about my own country's political processes from news organizations in other nations. Yes, Mr. Murdoch, I'm talking about you, and those like you.
Might as well just rescind the Freedom of the Press clause in the First Amendment. Not sure it's doing much good nowadays anyway, and so far as I'm concerned if you're just going to get up on that soundstage, in front of those cameras, and lie to me, you don't deserve the protections that Amendment affords you.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
It started long before the careless war reporting. It started at least as far back as when they started posting press releases as stories, without any validation. Maybe when they started reiterating smear campaigns without checking the reasons why the smear started.
And the newspaper industry wonders why it's dying? Because anyone can mindlessly reiterate a press release.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Food stamps, higher minimum wage and unemployment "benefits" only serve to give to the poor that which was taken from people who actually planned ahead.
How do you "plan ahead" when you've never had the means to do so ?
Explain to me why the hell I should have to pay for Joe the Bum's food?
For when *you're* "Joe the Bum* because you were unlucky enough to be rendered bankrupt and homeless.
So because I bust my ass working, studied my ass off in college and actually had a sane financial plan I should be "punished" for that and Joe the Bum rewarded? I don't see the logic in that...
The logic is where you don't automatically assume anyone who isn't wealthy and successful is worthless and lazy.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's sad is that you think the answer to people who live in poor conditions is not to help them raise themselves out of those positions [...]
Help them how ? Education so they can gain the skills necessary to work ? Food and shelter so they don't need to steal to survive ? Medical care so they don't die young, be bankrupted by an unfortunate medical condition, or relegated to "crazy and homeless" by an easily treatable mental condition ?
Or just cut taxes (that they don't earn enough to pay anyway) ?
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really that idiotic? If you don't have the money to feed yourself, how do you "raise yourself"? Do you honestly believe your own success was entirely the result of you "pulling yourself up from the bootstraps"? Let's drop you in the middle of Somalia and see how far your hard work gets you.
Whenever someone says "take from others" they reveal themselves to be a selfish prick who can't wrap their head around the fact that they live within a system that allows them to succeed, and without help from that system poor people have no chance of succeeding.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks takes documents that are provided to them, often stolen and just throws them up on a website without investigation or reporting.
They do verify that the documents they get are legit before publishing them.
They edited the video of the Apache so it'd fit their worldview.
So first you want investigation and reporting, and when they do it you complain that they didn't just throw the unedited material on their website? Way to go logic. And oh btw. the unedited video has been available the whole time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
If wikileaks isn't journalism, (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we can certainly do without whatever *is* called "journalism".
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate media is also very much opposed to state-run media (which is why Sky TV is trying to get the UK Government to kill off the BBC via death by a thousand cuts), so anything corporate media says about state-run media (or, indeed, vice versa) should be taken with vast quantities of sodium chloride. Those not familiar with "Max Headroom: 20 Minutes Into The Future" (the UK movie, not the US miniseries) are advised =strongly= to watch it repeatedly until they understand why profit-driven information delivery is a very, very, very bad idea.
(Indeed, the BBC is a good example of how state-run media can be done in a reasonable way. I won't say perfect - they killed Dr Who, Blake's 7 and The Tripods, all unforgivable crimes against propeller-heads - but I can't honestly name a single commercial channel in the US that I'd even rank close in quality. I won't even say that the BBC is a model the US should follow, though it would be an improvement on what's left of PBS. It is merely a proof-of-existence, evidence that a solution can exist that would be acceptable to the majority within any given political allegiance that would also be outside of the control of individuals who are answerable to nobody.)
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks isn't journalism because they don't do journalism. They have some guys doing opinion pieces, and that's about as close as it comes. They're largely just a repository for leaked documents. Being in possession of a leaked document doesn't make you a professional reporter.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you are saying that the chief executive officer, constitutionally, the top law enforcement officer of the land, going into a court of law and not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, doesn't somehow abuse the public trust or interests?
And before you go into the splitting hairs bit attempting to redefine the meaning of the word "is", I want to ask if you think it's proper for a politician in one of then highest offices in the land, to be attempting to escape punishment for their own deeds by technicalities and slight of hand tricks? And think about that as a political figure, not your guy or your side as this can go to the same effect of Nixon and Watergate or Bush Gate (whatever the called the Plame bullshit or Bush Lied Bullshit and so on). Can you sit there and say it's appropriate behavior for a sitting elected official to attempt to skirt the truth while under oath in a court of law or other venue- even if it was the guy you disagreed with.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is primarily, how do you not have the means? Seriously. Its pretty damn easy to find charities, jobs, etc. if you are willing and really, really need it.
Born addicted to crack. Never known anything except a mother who hates me and any one of hundred men who could (or couldn't) be daddy. Can't write, can barely read, and only string a sentence together thanks to Sesame Street. The nicest clothes I own are a ripped T-shirt and some dirty jeans. I smell because I can only bathe once every few days, I'm missing 1/4 of my teeth because I've never been to a dentist and my mum's been giving me coke since I was 5. I've got an undiagnosed case of dyslexia and I'm borderline schizophrenic.
How good do you think my chances of getting a job - any job - are ?
Yeah, living within your means might mean you can't afford to take that vacation to Cancun, [...]
You appear to be talking about born-and-raised middle-class folks living marginally beyond their means because they aspired a bit too high. The relevant topic of discussion is the poor and destitute. The folks living in alleys, not downgrading from a 5-bedroom home to a 3-bedroom apartment. People for whom a "vacation to Cancun" is a lifetime dream, not something they have to put off for 12 months.
[...] yeah, living within your means might mean your meals are ramen noodles and PB+J sandwiches.
Sorry, mum kicked me out on my 16th birthday so she could move to a 1 bedroom flat. Even if I wanted to move back in and watch her turn tricks all night, I couldn't.
Live within your means and that won't happen.
My means are barely enough to afford food and board, because arseholes like you think I'm lazy for spending 12 hours a day mopping floors and think I should only be paid $50 to do it. In the middle of New York City.
Yeah, there are a few people who just were simply unlucky, but that is very, very few and thats why private charities exist that don't steal money out of my paycheck.
Bullshit.
The number of people who *want* to live a bare existence - and don't kid yourself that welfare, or charity is anything more than a bare existence - is minscule. No-one is living the dream on welfare, despite what you might believe, and it sure as hell isn't the majority.
Re:LOLWUT? (Score:1, Insightful)
That would be a fair argument if Mike Wise worked in a relevant department of the NFL, but the information was still passed along without a giant "RUMOR" warning without any fact-checking, which shouldn't be done regardless of the credibility of a source. This is the same kind of journalism that causes news outlets to fall for Wikipedia defacements and announce "unconfirmed reports" of celebrity deaths.
It shouldn't be done, that's why it's OK to report what another journalist has said, provided you mention your source. He was deemed to be credible enough to requote, considering his job is to uphold journalistic standards. Are you telling me that if I'm editor of a small town newspaper, and the Washington Post reports that Obama was rushed to the hospital for a stroke, that I'm not supposed to mention that report until I get in touch with the White House? This is how we get breaking news immediately. Publishing a story that hasn't been verified independently by the publisher is exactly why the stories used wording to the effect of "Mike Wise reports that he was suspended for 5 games" as opposed to "He was suspended for 5 games." A journalist lied. What you consider a legitimate source can also lie. Even White House officials lie. When people we don't expect to lie lie, we get false reports. That's why sources are credited: in case this happens. They are reporting on a report that is presumably newsworthy. If you pay attention to what you read, you don't need a big blinking "RUMOR" warning. You should realize that the credibility of the story has as much weight as you want to put into the source. This wasn't a failure of the entire institution of journalism, this was a failure of Mike Wise.