Scalia once again demonstrates his commitment to Freedom of the Press.

[Ronn_Bman]

No, I don't believe his being camera shy is the problem. [img]smile.gif[/img]

According to the apology story, he's now allowing the print media to tape his speaches, so he won't be misquoted by them as he has been previously. It seems to me that is, at best, a back-handed concession to them. "You've screwed it up my quotes before, so start taping me because your memory sucks." [img]smile.gif[/img]

Then regarding the broadcast media he says they have always honored his request not to be taped when he doesn't wish to be, and he's sure that co-operation will continue. But the broadcast media is crying foul because he's allowing a level of access to the print media he's denying to them. I don't think images are the problem, but the broadcast media still won't be allowed to even play the audio when the print media could print any thing from a partial sentance snippit to a full transcript.

I can't say I blame them.

[ 04-13-2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Actually, I think it's that he doesn't want off-the-cuff comments made at numerous speeches being turned against him the next time he writes a judicial opinion. The justices really try to hold themselves aloof from the media, you know. They try to maintain an appearance and aura of sequestered legal reflection and reasoning largely unaffected by the ebb and flow of mass media. Of course, they make gaffs. Like when S.D. O'Connor mentioned that if Gore won, she wouldn't be able to retire when she wanted (because she can't trust a Democrat to replace her).

Yeah I'd hate to seem him get tripped up by an off-the-cuff remark caught on tape. It would be so unlike the appearance of a major conflict of interest generated by him not recusing himself from ruling on Cheney's engery files after going duck hunting with Mr Cheney [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: According to the apology story, he's now allowing the print media to tape his speaches, so he won't be misquoted by them as he has been previously. It seems to me that is, at best, a back-handed concession to them. "You've screwed it up my quotes before, so start taping me because your memory sucks." [img]smile.gif[/img]

Transcriping can still lead to mis-quotes, see the recent bruhaha regarding the Kerry mis-quote regarding foriegn leaders supporting him for president. At least with an audio record you can go back and verify what was really said, as was done in the case of the Kerry quote. With no recording it becomes a he said, she said. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Oh well, at the end of the day, he's free to set whatever rules he likes - just as the media is free to ignore him if they choose.

And of course, he can legitimately argue that 'print' journalists will only record him for personal rather than public use, using their tape recorders as 'note-pads' rather than scribble furiously as old-timers did before them and that therefore he is merely trying to be accomodating.

It seems clear that he has an issue with broadcasting his likeness and voice rather than recording in itself.

[ 04-13-2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

I knew the duck hunting thing would come up. Knowing and being friends with a party is not the same as having a personal interest in the outcome -- which is the legal test. If going out to lunch with or liking an attorney is a conflict problem for a judge, my wife would have to quit her job as a prosecutor after 1 month. Being friends does not preclude impartiality.

But, I think his taste in friends speaks volumes.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming -- which I think includes pretending there is a difference between print and broadcast media companies. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Let's try to be mindful that all our base are belong to 3 or 4 big companies that get to feed us info from about 5 different directions.