MESSAGE
| DATE | 2021-12-27 |
| FROM | baruchd
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] The privacy privileged and the Press
|
A bit long winded, i.e., it might discourage reading it, but on the mark and just as likely to be ignored by the “despicable” at the Times.
> On Dec 25, 2021, at 5:55 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> Please see these articles and then read my commentary:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/24/business/media/new-york-times-project-veritas.html
>
> https://www.projectveritas.com/news/hot-off-the-press-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-project/
>
>
>
> I don't often read the NY Times any longer because I have found in the
> last 5 years that the reporting has become subpar, and more importantly
> it has become bigoted and infused with far leftist political discourse.
> The paper has long moved from its position as an unbiased platform for
> reporting facts to an investigative and political platform for the
> extreme left. It is sad, and I feel deep remorse at this loss.
>
> It is very unfortunate that future generations will never experience the
> grandeur of the old New York Times. Although the modern Times had
> always had a left leaning slant, it's commitment to fair and even handed
> reporting was the lateen of the editorial board for the paper, and its
> main mast was the broad publication of data, biographies, histories, and
> first hand reporting of the facts. Upon this, the Times was able to
> occasionally pursue investigative reporting on a bedrock of solid facts
> and avoid muckraking, and most importantly, to disengage as a direct
> participant of the political struggles of the day. They laid out events
> using the third person voice and committed themselves to reporting
> conflicts from multiple perspectives leaving the judgment of these
> events to the reader. In a word, the NY Times had respect for its
> readership, and this is no longer the case.
>
> It is hard to find such a news source in today's 24/7 news cycle of
> hysteria.
>
> The Times has found itself embroiled in controversy this week as a
> political participant of the previous presidential election in a way
> which might be humorous if it was not for the serious long term
> consequences. Ideally, the press should never be a direct participant
> of an election, but it seems that axiom has long since fallen. They had
> decided to take it upon themselves to privately investigate a small time
> political organization which doubtfully anyone would really care about
> called "Project Vertas". On the internet, nobody knows your a dog.
>
> Project Vertas, in short, is a modern version of El ingenioso hidalgo
> don Quixote de la Mancha played out by James O’Keefe who has taken as
> his chivalric objective the taking down of the entire world press. And
> in this crusade, he has garnered a number of like minded volunteer
> "journalist" to help expose the truth, wherever that might eventually
> lead. Over all, it is a rather interesting run of the mill expression
> of modern Democracy in action, where every constituency can find its
> voice and partake of political activity. But I'm a support of Free
> Software and a Jew at that, so I am all for tilting at windmills. And
> such projects can be not only satisfying to the participants, but at
> times make practical contributions to a society at large. We gain
> little in suppressing such minority voices and lose a great deal in not
> just diversity of voices, but in terms of individual protection.
>
> The NY Times, however, has found Project Vertas to be a political threat
> to our freedom and has launched a vicious campaign to suppress their
> activities and voice. And what is better is that Project Vertas has
> decided to investigate the NY Times. And the entire thing has now
> landed in court with an important and unexpected result. Project Vertas
> has hired lawyers tasked with protecting and advising the organization
> on legal matters. Generally, this kind of activity is protected under
> client-lawyer confidentiality under the assumption that lawyers can't
> possibly do their jobs of defending clients if the communications
> between the client and the lawyer is not protected. Unlike the job of
> the Free Press, the job of a lawyer is advocacy of the client. This
> client-lawyer privileged has taken a beating since the Trump election
> starting with the FBI investigations of Trumps lawyers, and even from
> before this.
>
> The court, however, for some reason, has decided, enough is enough, and
> on Friday the State Supreme Court in Westchester County issued this
> ruling when the Times acquired confidential client attorney
> communications and threatened to public it.
>
> QUOTE:
> “Undoubtedly, every media outlet believes that anything that it
> publishes is a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote. He added:
> “Our smartphones beep and buzz all day long with news flashes that
> supposedly reflect our browsing and clicking interests, and we can tune
> in or read the news outlet that gives us the stories and topics that we
> want to see. But some things are not fodder for public consideration and
> consumption.”
>
> “The Times is perfectly free to investigate, uncover, research,
> interview, photograph, record, report, publish, opine, expose or ignore
> whatever aspects of Project Veritas its editors in their sole discretion
> deem newsworthy, without utilizing Project Veritas’s attorney-client
> privileged memoranda,” the judge wrote.
>
> ENDQUOTE
>
> I would venture to say that if we do not have a protected private space,
> and not just in this matter, we are completely disenfranchised and
> slaves to the state, and to other instruments of society. I would also
> like to remind the NY Times, that it is absolutely equally important for
> a group like Project Veritas to be free to participate in our Democracy
> and have a voice as it is for the NY Times. It has been the case
> previously that the NY Times legal memos and communications had become a
> bone of contention with the Government and others and that you also
> deserve the same protections that Project Veritas does. The Times would
> answer that they are not the government. I would firmly respond that in
> this case, that is irrelevant.
>
>
> Reuvain Safir
>
> --
> So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
> that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
> proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
>
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www.brooklyn-living.com
>
> Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
> but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
