The above caption is the famous line, spoken by one of the banditos, from John Huston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
It epitomizes the so-called right of the public "to know."
To know what?
What it can find out about, that's what.
There's a private detective in Los Angeles, Anthony Pellicano, under federal indictment for breaking the laws against wiretapping on behalf of attorneys and businessmen who know the value of knowledge, such as what their adversaries plan to do next.
If we have a right to know, then why is Pellicano accused of a crime for providing the information?
There's lots we're not allowed to know about. Government secrets, for instance. Scooter Libby, Shotgun Dick Cheney's right hand man, is under indictment for allegedly leaking the identity of a secret government agent, Valerie Plame, to the media (or mainstream media, MSM for short) in order to discredit her husband, a former ambassador who made a liar out of Pres. Bush over a piece of cake. Yellowcake, in this instance, a source of uranium for making atomic bombs.
We don't have a right to peep into each others medical records, do we.
We don't have a right to divulge embarrassing private details about each others lives.
Attorneys, doctors, and priests have no right to divulge secret information provided by clients, do they.
It looks like the public right to know is the exception rather than the rule.
Perhaps the press would sound less dopey if it proclaimed "The public's right to try to find out what's not illegal to find out."
That might be a more accurate statement of the law.
See John Tierney's NYT column, below, for his take on this grave problem of First Amendment law. Then take a warm bath, dim the lights, and put on some soothing music while you try to relax.
 |
Op-Ed Columnist
The Inalienable Right to Hot Copy
Harry Whittington tried to calm the furor yesterday, but we must not let him. Leaving the hospital, he expressed regret for Dick Cheney's troubles over what he considered a simple hunting accident at a friend's ranch. But it was so much more.
It was a violation of the public's right to know. Apologists for Dick Cheney argue that the public was informed of the accident, but it took 20 hours — almost an entire news cycle! The Sunday morning talk shows, deprived of what was rightfully their story, were tragically forced to discuss the National Security Agency and Michelle Kwan's injured groin.
Even worse, the news was released by a nonprofessional — a "private person," as a CBS reporter said accusingly at a White House briefing — with no qualifications except being the owner of the ranch and a witness at the scene of the accident. Incredibly, instead of issuing a press release to the national press corps, she chose to be interviewed by a local newspaper reporter. How long can the First Amendment survive such assaults?
Cheney's apologists say this was a private incident with no connection to his official duties, but they should know there are higher duties for any public figure in Washington — or Hollywood or Manhattan. To prevent any further dereliction, we need to enshrine these duties in federal law.
The most logical name for it would be Harry's Law. But since Whittington is being so uncooperative with reporters — yesterday he took none of their questions! — let's honor NBC's David Gregory for his leadership in expressing the press corps's outrage at the White House's conspiracy of silence. (He called Scott McClellan "a jerk.") Here's an outline of David's Law:
1. By this Act of Congress, let it be known that any individual recognized in libel law as a Public Figure (P.F.), in exchange for the financial remunerations and other perquisites of said position, is hereby obliged to provide the press with what are known professionally as "personal dramas," "human-interest stories," "hot copy" and "the goods."
2. This law shall apply in the event that a P.F. commits news, defined as any act whose reporting could reasonably be expected to raise the ratings for a television news program by at least 20 percent. Such events include, but are not limited to, any criminal charges and the following:
i) Accidents involving firearms, automobiles, bicycles, stairs, golf balls, household appliances, pretzels.
ii) Altercations at hotels and restaurants, including any encounters with ex-spouses.
iii) Discoveries of photographs taken at any date with an individual currently under indictment.
iv) Discoveries of videos made by former sexual partners.
v) Allegations made by summer interns.
vi) Any significant life event, including pregnancy, marriage, cosmetic surgery, divorce, admission to a rehabilitation clinic, unorthodox acts of parenting (e.g., dangling baby from balcony).
3. Within four hours of such act, the Mainstream Media (MSM), as defined in Appendix A, shall be notified by a Certified Flack (C.F.) who on at least six prior occasions has been identified in the MSM as a "spokesperson," "media handler," "communications consultant" or "spinmeister."
4. Within six hours, the C.F. shall provide MSM with appropriate video and photographs, including mug shots when available. When announcing a divorce or spousal murder, C.F. shall release at least one past photograph of the couple suitable to appear above the caption "In happier times."
5. At a news conference, to be scheduled at a time suitable for members of the MSM working on second-day stories, the P.F. shall answer all MSM questions. Whether the P.F. apologizes or offers an excuse (e.g., stress, drugs, political enemies, low self-esteem, dehydration), the following sentence shall be uttered: "At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with the family."
6. Within four days of an incident, the P.F. shall conduct a sit-down interview with the host of a national TV program. Tears shall not be mandatory during the interview, but the P.F. shall display emotion and draw a "larger lesson" from the incident.
7. If the MSM pursues a story beyond five days, the P.F. shall visit "Oprah" and announce plans either to seek personal treatment with Dr. Phil or to work to "raise public awareness of this problem."
8. The P.F. shall address all "lingering questions" raised until the seventh day after the incident. At such time, but not before, the P.F. may issue an appeal to "move on" and "respect my right to privacy."
9. Nothing in this law shall be construed to grant any such right.