BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

None of your business

13 comments on None of your business

None of your business
: I find it chilling that the U.S. Attorney’s office is apparently getting involved in the case of the lying scribe, Jayson Blair, at the New York Times.

This is not a matter for government involvement.

And all you liberatarians and conservatives out there — no matter how much you love to hate the Times — should agree that this would be an abuse and over-extension of government authority and a violation of the First Amendment.

For if the government sticks its nose into even this clear case of lying, it sets a precedent that allows it to enter other, less clear cases. What’s to stop a President or any government official — down to my little town — from siccing cops and prosecutors on a columnist or reporter or editor or producer for saying something they don’t like and calling it a lie?

See: Richard Nixon enemies list. See: J. Edgar Hoover surveillance files.

13 responses to “None of your business”

  1. Shamus Avatar
    Shamus

    As a libertarian-ish sort of fellow, I agree that the government has no reason to stick its nose in here. Having the government attempt to prevent lies in the media is far more dangrous than the lies themselves. Really.
    If publishing lies is somehow illegal, then why is the Enquirer or Weekly World News allowed to operate? Shouldn’t the truth police be dispatched to round those guys up before being deployed to The Times?
    I really hope there is more to the story than what we’re seeing here.

  2. politicaobscura Avatar
    politicaobscura

    First of all, the Department of Justice has not confirmed this investigation.
    Second, even if the DOJ is investigating, we don’t know what they are investigating. Maybe Blair was taking expense reimbursements and not declaring them on his taxes. My the NYTimes called the DOJ and they have to at least look into it.
    I’m just saying that the DOJ is probably looking at a very particular crime and we don’t know which law it is.

  3. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    Yeah, it does seem like a very bad idea. I’m not sure if it’s actually a First Amendment violation, since fraud and lying aren’t generally protected, though. However, I still think it’s a very bad idea. (It’s possible that he broke other laws– if he claimed certain meals as business expense tax writeoffs when they weren’t, for example. That investigation would be relatively normal.)
    Of course, I also know that a bunch of securities traders, accountants, Nike executives and others will get a grim sense of satisfaction if the Times is investigated and even sued by private readers. After all, this is the paper that is solidly anti-tort reform, pro-investigations, in favor of making top managers personally liable for misrepresentations, believes that corporate speech isn’t free speech, and in general is in favor of as many intrusive regulations as possible to ensure that businesses are telling the truth. In those cases, there’s an assumption of guilt, and any chilling effect be damned.
    After all, an improperly used audit or criminal investigation of fraud by a company could equally well be used to destroy opponents. So too can frivolously filed lawsuits, whether by rapacious lawyers or attorney generals. Yet somehow the Times is completely in favor of those investigations, audits, and lawsuits being as frequent and in-depth as possible, brushing off complaints as self-interested. “Free speech for me but not for thee” makes it hard to be too sympathetic.

  4. Guy Montag Avatar
    Guy Montag

    Umm, guys, if there really is an investigation and if it is along the lines of a CRIMINAL Copyright violation, then it is a valid use of police power.
    No matter how much I personally disagree with Copyright issues being criminal acts (I fully embrace them as civil charges), that is the current, lawful (as it is measured) law of the land.

  5. Scrutineer Avatar
    Scrutineer

    This conservatarian lawyer agrees with BM. I don’t see any reason to make a federal criminal case out of this.
    To Guy Montag, I was almost ready to agree with you until I realized that copyright disputes are resolved (almost) exclusively in civil cases by the involved parties. I can’t remember the last time I read about the feds prosecuting such a case. Can you?

  6. Tom Maguire Avatar
    Tom Maguire

    I agree that generically, a criminal investigation seems like a bad idea.
    I read somewhere (not this CNN link) that the investigation was tied to the sniper case, where Blair made up leaks and (arguably) impeded the investigation, which I think can be a crime. That is not totally encouraging, but it means that they are not criminalizing ALL lying.
    Now, would I have liked a criminal investigation at the Post during Watergate? No. Do I have an easy time seeing why this could be a terrible idea? Yes. Do I see why various prosecutors have it in for this guy, and for the paper that gave him a megaphone? Yes. Is impeding an investigation a crime? Sometimes.
    My guess is this goes nowhere, barring Dramatic New Developments.

  7. Bill Quick Avatar
    Bill Quick

    And the libertarian Daily Pundit did exactly that, Jeff.

    But accepting the notion that the state has a role to play in controlling plagiarism or lies in a free press is an extremely slippery slope, one that leads to “Ministries of Truth” and similar abominations that don’t aid a free press, but destroy it.

  8. David Gillies Avatar
    David Gillies

    This is where a common misconception between libertarians and Conservatives often arises. Simply because libertarians do not wish there to be government intrusion into a given situation, it does not therefore follow that all activities should be equally protected from sanction. Libertarians are not simply against regulation of all kinds – it’s the top-down government flavour they don’t like. Regulation at the level of ‘natural law’, against activities which violate the social contract, is just fine and dandy. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and if there is not seen to be grave and condign punishment for transgressors like Blair, then people will turn to Big Brother to do the job. Social opprobrium should be a much more powerful disincentive against wrongdoing than illegality; one of the reasons the Left is so pernicious is that its attempts to break down the social contract make a truly liberal society that much more difficualt to attain.
    In other words, it’s incumbent on the NYT to put its house in order, if it does not want the Feds to do it instead. This they have signally failed to do thus far, and that should worry all of us.

  9. Michael Levy Avatar
    Michael Levy

    Jayson Blair’s reporting slandered the FBI. So now they’re going to stick it to the NYT. That’s not right. The gov’t should back the hell off. Why interfere with your enemy while he’s self-destructing?

  10. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    Let’s not forget that filing fake expense reports is fraud, and while the offense might not be worthy of federal charges, that doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Enron was also fraud. Should it have been ignored?
    With Enron, people lost their trust in corporate accounting. With Jayson Blair, people lost their trust in an American institution.

  11. serenity Avatar
    serenity

    Good point about the Enquirer, Shamus–although people do sue the tabloid for lies.

  12. bern de galvez Avatar
    bern de galvez

    Politicaobscura is exactly right

  13. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Isn’t it a bit silly to get upset over rumors that he’s being investigated for something by the DOJ?
    Especially as it’s likely it’s probably for fraud – it’s been mentioned that he would submit expenses for trips, but actually stay at home. If he put them on his taxes, that would be a crime…