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