Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 7, 1979)
opinion Fourth Estate under pressure By Joe Woods For The Print When our economy is being ravaged by inflation and haun ted by the spectre of a new recession, we tend to become preoccupied with large problems. Less obvious, but just as potentially dangerous, one sometimes slip past our at tention; remaining undetected, until it’s too late to do anything about them. In the spring of 1971, a squadron of police officers pushed into the offices of the Stanford Daily in Palo Alto, California. Armed with a sim ple pocket search warrant, they rifled the newspapers’ files and generally disrupted publication. They -were ostensibly looking for photographs, they thought the Dailys’ photographer may have snapped; of possible assailants in a riot where nine policemen were injured. They found nothing. But the newspaper sued all the way to the Supreme Court on grounds that their rights un der the first ammendment had been infringed upon. They lost. The first ammendent to the Constitution of the United States guarantees our free press the ability to investigate and report the news to the people without fear of that right being abridged. Yet recent rulings by the Supreme Court against the press, not only affect the ability of the press to fulfill it’s respon sibility to the first ammen dment, but also establish the precedents whereby the freedom of all citizens is placed in jeopardy. But how did it happen? When did it start? And where will it lead? I’m sure you’ve heard of the strange case of Myron Farber, a reporter who was sent to jail last year for refusing to reveal his confiden tial sources to a district court judge in New Jersey. In order to fully understand the scope and implications of the Farber case, we must examine closely a series of precedents dating back to 1967, a series of precedents which set the stage for the dismantling of the first ammen dment. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1967 case ot Warden ver sus Hayden that, “In cases of search and seizure, it is no> longer necessary to make a distinction between con traband, fruits, and instrumen talities of a crime, and merely evidentiary materials,” (such as a reporters notes, a doctors files, or a businessmans ledgers).” This ruling opened the door for the issuance of warrants entitling police to through articles search belonging to third parties, not associated with the crime being investigated, but who may have information about that crime. Thus, the Supreme Court gave police agencies a carte blanche to pursue the in vasion of anyones privacy, be they doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief. In 1972 the court ruled, in the Branzburg versus Hayes decision, that news reporters were no longer guaranteed the right to confidential sour ces. Commenting in dissent to the decision, then Justice William O. Douglas said, “Now that the fences of the law and the tradition that has protected the press are broken down; the people are the victims. The first ammendment, as I read it, was designed precisely to prevent that tragedy.” The honorable justice was warning us then, we should have listened. Because the Supreme Court ruled last May 31st, in its Zurcher versus the Standard Daily decision, that the “police are completely within their rights to push, unannounced, into a newsroom, or any other place for that matter, as long as a judge has issued a search warrant, even if the occupant is not suspected of a crime.” ABC news commentator, Howard K. Smith called it, “The most dangerous ruling the court has made " in memory.” These are facts: 1) Newsmen require infor mants to gather news. 2) Confidentiality is essential to the creation and maintenen- ce of a news gathering relation ship with informants. 3) The existence of unbridled sprint 19600 S. Mollali« Avenue, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 Office«: Trailer B; telephone: 656*2631, ext. 309 or 310 editor Cyndi Bacon * new« editor Scott Starnes arts editor Leanne Lally * sports editor Mark McNeary photo editor Kelly Laughlin * staff writers Happle Thacker, Mike Koller, Elena Vancil, Brenda Nolan, Don Ives, Steve McPherson, Tommy Clark, Ramona Isackson, James Rhoades, Brian Rood staff photographersGreg Klenzle, Charlie Wagg, Pat Carlson ’cartoonist Mary Cuddy ‘graphic designer Bev Boston production manager Janet Voclurodt business manager Mark Barnhill * professional adviser Suzie Boss Page 2 I K aiyipus K uips ’Line C oo K * ‘SToRE CL erk ’ L ocal . R es T u KA nt HP SMALL AXARKeT AFrtTRivooMS, Eves, SP® HR , LÜI ULTRA IM. Y ard u > ôrk min I /now LA^ETC. \ F oe elderu «? I ,Cô carle ,| ’CHIEF NFURO* S urgcon CAR&E M eoi CAL AMD RPSTAiRCH CtMTER. S ome : EXRER. FREFEFL — subpoena powers liberalized search and seizure laws will deter sources from devulging, and reporters from gathering and publishing. Would “Deep Throat” have come forward with the Watergate information if he had known that his name could have been discovered by police while raiding the files of the Washington Post? 1 think not. The current adversary position taken between the press and the police and courts can only contribute to further harassment. Ironically, this whole thing could conceivably hinder police investigations as well, because prosecutors often depend heavily on published news stories for leads into the in vestigation of criminal activity. John Leaonard, President of the National District Attorneys Association, testified that much of the information for in vestigative stories is obtainable only if the confidentiality of sources is assured. He thinks that information which would never be disclosed to law en forcement officials may come to light through confidential contacts with the media. If the media is reduced to printing uncontroversial mush for fear of harassment, law en forcement agencies will have effectively cut off the hand that feeds them. Paradoxically, as told to me by the editor of a small town daily, who wished that his name be withheld, the. media people themselves are soft- soaping their predicament for fear that if they play up the in justice in print, they will not only incur the wrath of the courts more readily, but also scare off potential sources by publicizing the fact that they can no longer be assured ab solute confidentiality. This en tire situation would almost be laughable, if the prospects were not so chilling. this The gravity of predicament has been less recognized by no authorities than the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States. The last session of Congress saw thé introduc tion of press protection bills by congressmen, Dole, Bayh, Haskell and Drinan. In substance all of the bills were alike in that they would attempt to solve the problem by requiring, that an adversary hearing be held in front of a Magistrate before any writ enabling a search could be issued. Unfortunately, these bills died before they got o] committee. President Cafl urging his friends on capita to pass a similar bill durin] current session. fl Let us hope and praj] such a bill is not only pass] to law but that it goe] challenged by the Sup] Court because, if the curl trend is allowed to go | checked, the day will col when the phrase “No ne] good news” will be on th] of those who would like to] the people of this country] form to a rigid system of c] and manipulation. Since I am not a woB journalist, I have no fel retribution or of being! fin from my job for speakin] on this issue. Please he] right this inequitable sit] by encouraging your legis] to support the press pro™ bill this term. I call upon yoi make this issue known to tM who can do something ab] before it is too late. For if the freedom oil press is’ allowed to be] asunder in the name of j] then what other subvers«] that word does the futur] in store for a people wh] must struggle and never] for granted, the wol freedom. feedback To The Editor: Now is the time to recycle: our economy and environment demand attention today, because of the possible effects of present pollution on us in the here and now, as well as tomorrow and into the close future. The Environmental Learning Center wants to work with you to reverse the trend of discar ding items after just one use. They have set up recycling barrels in every building on campus where you can throw your newspapers, notebook papers, typing papers - in fact almost -any sort of scrap paper into the barrels. Carbon paper, cent less water and proli paper cups and plates, food 70 percent less pollutants™ wrappers, rubber bands and paper from virgin fiber. I Perhaps, though, thelbe cellophane paper are non- recyclable. Also golden-rod reason to recycle is for t| colored paper is non-. Of course you can throwlrol recyclable. The E.L.C. also garbage away until it dr] gives good hints in the Today you - you can leave it to futui on making the most out of your generations, but are yod h environment as well as your they could do anything aboil then? Why don’t you mak] money. effort now? Just one reason to recycle is Bring your recyclable pafl the fact that one person uses to the barrels in your sell and discards one Douglas Fir buildings, watch for th Ell every six months: at that rate Hints on Recycling, and re] demand far exceeds supply. today! Cathy Gi Another good reason tor John Ina recycling is that manufacture of Environmental C| recycled paper requires 61 per- Clackamas Community Col
