Should the reporters talk?

[Diva]

Two etv journalists have been subpoenaed to appear in court today. The police are asking them to reveal the identities of 2 alleged criminals they interviewed. The 2 men in question threatened to commit crimes against foreign fans during the World cup.

While the police say that they are not chasing news sources, but criminals, the press say that the action is ill-advised.

Should these journo's give up the names?

[Orange]

In my opinion, yes, they should. And if they don't, they should be charged with obstruction of justice. Just because you're a journalist doesn't remove from you the civic duty of all citizens to inform the police of any criminal activity you are aware of, either planned or already done.

[Sylar]

Yes, they said that they were going to commit crimes.

They should hand over the details of the men, no question about it. ETV are full of shit though, i'm sure they are enjoying all the free publicity.

[Cloudgazer]

Saying you're gonna commit a crime is not a crime - unless there is proof that you've actually planned to do so.

I plan to destroy the world!

it's merely a statement - should i get arrested for it?
Maybe these criminals were just looking for some airtime.

e-tv may have shown bad judgement by airing the interview - but they should not have to give up their sources.

the ANCYL are always threatening violence. Why aren't they arrested.

It's all bullshit.

[Sylvana]

Journalists have a right to privacy much like lawyers and doctors, If they didnt I doubt they would be able to do thier jobs. This privelage though does not make them exempt from being called to testify, but all alternative sources must be examined first. IE, the police should actually do thier job. Given that the police have caputred one of the men in question, the subpoenas are no longer valid or legal. Free journalism requires that reporters can access the inconvieneit truth.

Also, these men said they intend to commit crimes against tourists. However, until they do commit said crime, they are still innocent. They technically cannot be charged with anything. Unfortuantely thats how it works. The police can investigate them, and prevent them from commiting the crimes, but the police cannot chrage them with anyhting until those men attempt to commit a crime.

[Sylar]

Saying you're gonna commit a crime is not a crime - unless there is proof that you've actually planned to do so.

I plan to destroy the world!

it's merely a statement - should i get arrested for it?
Maybe these criminals were just looking for some airtime.

e-tv may have shown bad judgement by airing the interview - but they should not have to give up their sources.

the ANCYL are always threatening violence. Why aren't they arrested.

It's all bullshit.

Well I agree that the ANCYL should be arrested but that is about all.

I think that the press is becoming a danger to its self, false and inaccurate reporting are becoming the norm. They are not above the law, you can't just say anything in the media and you also can't expect there to be consequences when you show two criminals admitting that have committed and will commit more violent crimes.

[Cloudgazer]

whoa. if the report was false and inaccurate - then no need to pursue the alleged criminals.
If the report was accurate - well the police need to do a bit of their own investigations. (did they actually commit the crimes they spoke of, are the yreally planning on more?)
E-tv's crime (if it is that) is bad judgement, by trying to cause panic/paranoia - but thats it.

The press should not ever be required to give up their sources.

[AntiThesis]

Isn't intent to commit a crime one of the things that pops over the line of protecting your sources? I think it's the same for doctors, priests, shrinks and so on isn't it? If I go to a therapist and tell him/her that I'm going to murder my whole family there's a responsibility there to let the authorities know if it seems at all serious.

Same goes for this I think. If you say you're going to commit a crime then you need to be prepared for the police trying to have a chat. It's not like the people need to be arrested, just asked down for questions.

[Sylar]

At the very least you should reveal how you found these people.

[Insider]

I don't think that the journalists should be forced to give up the names of the two people they interviewed ( although I'm reading one of the two has already been arrested, and apparently the source of the infomation has committed suicide.

I personally think this has been blown out of all proportion. It's not that I am anti-police or pro crime in ANY way, but while it may have been seen as sensationalist for eTV to go with the story on their news, they do have a right to show another side to what can be expected. Minister Cele has been on about being tough on crime etc and essentially all eTV showed was that for some criminals the message is not striking any fear in them. This is a reality and I think that's all they were trying to show with the interviews. This was shown on local tv and not on international tv, so I hardly think it was in any way meant to create panic or paranoia. And anyone who thinks that there is not going to be an upswing in criminal activity around the WC with all the tourists here is simply deluding themselves.

If anything, police should take cognizance of this kind of criminal mindset and Cele should ensure that he in fact does have enough people available, with the right capability and capacity to do the job when the time comes. We have to be very careful of supression of the media, because the right to information is critical and once the police and government can clamp down on any reporting that doesn't show them in positive light it's the beginning of the slippery slope.

Edited to add - And these two said they intended to rob tourists when they came to SA, but as has been mentioned, they may not. They may be dead by the time the WC rolls around. Who knows? You simply cant report/arrest someone saying a mindless thing without anything to substantiate it about something that may happen in 5 months time.

[AntiThesis]

I certainly don't neccesarily think that eTV was doing this to be sensationalist - it's quite possible that they were trying to get the point across that there will be crime at the world cup. But people know this... we have a country which is used to taking advantage of people and will have a whole bunch of people here who are used to cities where you don't need to lock your doors. Something is going to happen.

But what message does it send to the criminals (who we need to remember, are criminals) if two of them get interviewed, play up the fact that they're going to rob tourists and simply walk away? Take it a step further - what if they'd said they were going to murder and/or rape the tourists? Do we still just leave it unreported? What if they said they were going to particularly target children?

I feel that if the journalists had any certainty that these people meant what they were saying they should have passed the information on to the police for further work. Not neccesarily arrest - the police do other things besides chuck people in prison. The same goes for anyone else bound by a promise of protection. If I sat in therapy and told a psychiatrist that I was going to go home and murder my children I'd damn sure want them to speak to someone.

And what's the terrible upshot of the press passing on the name of criminals to the police? Less in-depth true stories from criminal perspectives? Not really tragic. IMO the press should be heading towards the time where only those who have something to hide have something to fear from them.

[Orange]

So what I gather from here is that some people on this forum (irrespective of their disclaimers) would rather protect the freedom of the press than even remotely have the press actually help the police and thereby combat crime? Your names have been noted, and I'd suggest you never ever say another word about the crime situation in this country.

[Cloudgazer]

So what I gather from here is that some people on this forum (irrespective of their disclaimers) would rather protect the freedom of the press than even remotely have the press actually help the police and thereby combat crime? Your names have been noted, and I'd suggest you never ever say another word about the crime situation in this country.

I'm sorry, but if a journalist can find these people and put them in front of a camera, the police should have no problem tracking them down.

It is not the media's job to help the police, creating/reporting stories is their job.

Now I'm not saying they shouldn't help the police if possible, but they should not be made to give up their sources.

[Sylar]

Let me get this straight, If a criminal tells me that they are responsible for a crime or that they are going to commit a crime then if I don't tell the police then I am aiding and abetting a crime.

However if the same thing happens and I write about it in a newspaper then its not ?

How about if I commit a crime and then write about it in the newspaper ?

its all BS.

[Paul Bedford]

etv probably shouldn't have aired the segment in the first place.

Probably one of the most balanced reports on the whole mess is by Stephen Grootes.

[Sylvana]

I'm sorry, but if a journalist can find these people and put them in front of a camera, the police should have no problem tracking them down.

This here is the central issue. Reporters are legaly protected from revealing their sources. They can only be subpoenaed if the police, hawks, military you name it, have been unable to uncover anything through normal investigation. The police investigated and arrested one of the people. Hence the subpoenas are not legaly valid anymore. Further they should never have been issued in the first place as the police had not investigaetd at all when they were.

Lastly, if someone tells me they are going to kill thier whole family, rape tourists, murder small children, and I do nothing, I am not aiding crime. If said person attempts these things as actions, and i do nothing, then yes I am aiding crime. However, until spoken intent becomes action, it is not illegal. Further certain profesions are protected from being forced to divulge certain infromation. Lawyers, doctors and yes reporters are but a few. These people cannot correctly perform thier jobs without the protection the law provides them.

They are protected from being forced to divluge information, however, they can choose to do so if they deem it is required. Generally the doctors and lawyers who talk about thier clients confidential details dont stay in business very long but that is thier problem.

[Orange]

Sorry...we obviously have a differing view as to what constitutes a citizens duties in preventing crimes. We're not talking about someone's medical history here.

You retain information that would've assisted the police in combating crime, you are part of the problem. EVERY citizen has a moral duty to assist the police in the fight against crime. Irrespective of what job you hold. There are only so many policemen. They cannot be everywhere at once. They rely on you and me and every other responsible citizen to help them.

Otherwise we may as well retrench the lot of them and just let anarchy reign.

[Cloudgazer]

Sorry...we obviously have a differing view as to what constitutes a citizens duties in preventing crimes. We're not talking about someone's medical history here.

You retain information that would've assisted the police in combating crime, you are part of the problem. EVERY citizen has a moral duty to assist the police in the fight against crime. Irrespective of what job you hold. There are only so many policemen. They cannot be everywhere at once. They rely on you and me and every other responsible citizen to help them.

Otherwise we may as well retrench the lot of them and just let anarchy reign.

Tell that to the church.
someone confesses and the priest goes to the cops - yup that will sit will with the religious masses.

There was no proof of a crime in this instance - the alleged criminals could easily have been talking shit. There was simply a conversation about crime, not an actual crime.
If the journalist had proof that a crime had been commited, then yes, go to the cops.
But this was not the case.

[Orange]

If it was an idle chit chat, WTF was it doing being broadcast?? They clearly believed it to be serious, otherwise it would never have made it onto the program. Which means the journalist and the editor in chief must have considered it a realistic threat, and as such had an obligation to take it to the police.

And I'm not Catholic. As far as I'm concerned that whole confession thing is a load of horse, and it's "sanctity" right with it. Any minister worth his/her salt will take the confessor straight to the police station themselves.

[Melissa]

I have to say I agree with Orange.