On Thaddeus Matthews
(Photo: CA) Click the conversation for update.
Note to the CA: it's thaddeusmatthews.com. Trevor Aaronson's article has an error.
In any event, Aaronson raised the possibility that Shelby County D.A. Bill Gibbons could test Tennessee's shield law by forcing Tha MATT to reveal the source who leaked him a copy of Dexter Cox's unsigned homicide statement. Cox is the 18-year-old charged in the murder of officer Ed Vidulich.
An excerpt:Two days after Matthews posted the document, Shelby County Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons launched an investigation to determine who inside the cop shop released the statement. Those responsible, Gibbons said, may have violated Tennessee's law prohibiting misuse of official information, a misdemeanor.
The Cox statement posting. An older response to Gibbons. And another leak posting, where the comments section shows an aggressive resistance to Tha MATT, going so far as to post his public records, including a charge that he illegally squatted in a home next to Police Director Larry Godwin's last year.
In the end, Matthews may be the only one able to provide information about the alleged crime. Asked if he would consider subpoenaing Matthews, Gibbons was cagey. "The matter is under investigation," he said.
Such a subpoena could lead to the first test of Tennessee's shield law -- which defines a journalist as "a person ... who is independently engaged in gathering information for publication or broadcast" -- by nontraditional media.
"Though there is no case law in Tennessee on so-called 'nontraditional' journalists, it would just be very, very hard to argue that Matthews does not fit within the shield law's language," said Lucian Pera, an attorney who represents The Commercial Appeal.
But the Memphis blogger could be caught in a prickly part of the shield law. Under that law, a judge may choose to strip a reporter's shield if the journalist has information about a crime that "cannot reasonably be obtained by alternative means" when there is "a compelling and overriding public interest."
Previous rulings in Tennessee have established a high standard for divestiture of the shield. In 1987, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to remove the shield of Mark Curriden, a radio journalist protecting the identity of a man who confessed on-air to murder.
To me, though, those records are red herrings--just like Aaronson's article--in a visible contest between MPD's rank-and-file and its leadership. Tha MATT is merely a willing messenger, which is why targeting him is so problematic because it still doesn't get to the real issue of the internal departmental rift.
But I digress.
Whether Aaronson wants to admit it or not, Tha MATT is not just a blogger.
He's also a radio show host who utilizes the information that he gains to broadcast--or report (and he could characterize it as such)--to his listeners who are also part of his readership. Surely, that would gain him some coverage under the state's shield law. I'm just saying, the news-talk show, coupled with his "reporting," makes him a traditional journalist -- regardless of whether he does it full-time or not. There are plenty of journalists with secondary jobs.
And to that end, Aaronson's article doesn't go far enough.
If Gibbons pushes this, it's conceivable that the newspaper, or any other news-gathering operation, could face similar challenges down the road. And what would that do to local journalism?
It would be unfair to argue that Tha MATT has placed journalism at risk. While his methods are a bit extreme, it's also a fair argument to say Tha MATT's perceived edginess is a reflection on just how timid local journalists are.
Could you imagine--even in the midst of Sweeps--one of the local TV stations breaking a story that raises serious ethical questions within MPD's leadership? I couldn't. I also couldn't imagine the CA doing it either despite its investigative prowess because the newspaper rarely questions police accounts.
Yet, Tha MATT does because someone has to do it.
So again, if Gibbons challenge comes to fruition (and Aaronson's article could be read as a sign that something is on the horizon), then I also wouldn't be surprised if the CA, or other local media, came to Tha MATT's defense because his interests also represents their own. If the local media does nothing, then that would be a travesty all on its own.
What if the Cox leak's contents are true?
UPDATE: Tha MATT responds.
Labels:
CA,
Commentary,
Media,
Tha MATT,
Vidulich
14 comments:
Since Thad claims he is a "journalist" then perhaps he will be willing, ala Judith Miller, to sit in jail for 5 or 6 months to protect his sources.
Hopefully, it won't come to that, Anon. Clearly, though, he's willing to go to bat for his sources.
You know, it's rarely mentioned but Miller left the Times very shortly after her release and the conclusion of the investigation. She appears to have changed her opinion of her employer during her jail time.
Really? You think someone with the integrity that Thad has showcased on his blog will actually spend time in jail over protecting a "source". LOL. You must be kidding. He may hate Godwin - like he used to hate Willie until Willie paid his to post an ad on his blog during the Mayor's race - but I doubt there is enough hate in the world for him to do time over this.
There might be a whole lot of posturing here but I would think that Tha MATT would try to protect his sources.
More importantly, I would hope that others in the local media would lend a hand and help him protect his sources.
His character is not an issue here. The issue is journalism.
I would buy that if Thad's intent was based on some sort of journalistic integrity but from where I sit it looks more like a personal vendetta against Godwin. Yes, if there is a cover-up or "railroading" then expose it but I think there is very little of making things right vs and more of let's tear down the police director at all costs. Even to the point of dragging in other people's innocent family members to the fray in an effort to get at Godwin.
Why isn't the REAL media working on this or are they just sitting back and letting Thad do all the dirty work?
Thaddeus Matthews is an individual expressing an opinion on a blog site, not a journalist. He does not have a right to reveal internal police homicide documents any more than any individual has a right to do that and avoid prosecution.
"Why isn't the REAL media working on this or are they just sitting back and letting Thad do all the dirty work?"
I'm hoping that they are but the CA and TV stations are often restricted (for lack of a better word)in their approaches by legal departments or their own respective ethics. Still, if someone were to go on the record with them, then the whole game would change.
"Thaddeus Matthews is an individual expressing an opinion on a blog site, not a journalist. He does not have a right to reveal internal police homicide documents any more than any individual has a right to do that and avoid prosecution."
You're wrong. Tha MATT is a journalist, even if he refers to himself as a repo man first. Being a journalist is not defined by who signs your check--or whether you get a check at all.
Ok. He is a journalist. That still does not give him the right to post documents related to an on-going police investigation especially when those documents were not obtained legally.
"That still does not give him the right to post documents related to an on-going police investigation especially when those documents were not obtained legally."
I'm inclined to disagree but I'd rather leave that up to a court to decide.
In traditional media, the same legal rights that allow a journalist to protect sources also hold such writers accountable to report the truth. Shall we apply this to blogs as well? If journalists stray from what's true then they can be charged with libel - where does that leave Tha Matt?
I do think most bloggers (the ones that aren’t affiliated with a major news organization) should be allowed to write what they want, without being subjected to as strict requirements for fact and source-checking as journalists for mainstream media. But if it’s clear they are purposely twisting the facts and harming an individual’s reputation, then they should be responsible for that.
As distasteful as it is to me, I have to admit that Tha Matt fits the description of a journalist. But you have to admit that he's a very bad one.
I don't think it's likely that Gibbons will go after Tha Matt to name the source, as several local, legitimate news media will probably side with Tha Matt and it could be a long, protracted legal battle. It would look good for Tha Matt and bad for Gibbons in the end. And it may be a moot point, as perhaps Gibbons' investigation will reveal who the source is and Thad's info wouldn't be needed.
Gibbons and some of the other vitims of Tha Matt's character assassinations would probably do better to sue Tha Matt for libel. He's accused Gibbons, Godwin and several other local law enforcement officers of serious corruption, with no evidence and a ton of supposition.
Do you think The Commercial Appeal would provide any legal assistance for Tha Matt if he's sued for libel?
They are held responsible. You just pointed it out: Libel laws. There is no defense for libel. You get in big trouble that way, regardless of whose deep pockets or empty bank account are behind you.
I'm troubled by your remark: I do think most bloggers (the ones that aren’t affiliated with a major news organization) should be allowed to write what they want, without being subjected to as strict requirements for fact and source-checking as journalists for mainstream media.
We are and we aren't. You can't just say anything you want -- those libel laws again. As well as prohibitions against inciting to violence, crime, etc.
It's all freedom of speech. The Internet is just a new way of getting your voice out that puts you level, in many ways, with anyone else out there. We *should* be able to say almost anything we want to. That's our most priceless freedom as Americans. Even Canadians, British and Australians don't have as much freedom of speech as we have.
Opinions like that perplex me because I just don't understand how they come about. Read up on the first era of the printing press in Elizabethan England. The pamphleteers of that time were the bloggers of their day, and just as controversial. Newspapers were a different breed then, and you could easily end up in prison if you said the wrong thing about the Crown.
Newspapers and television and glossy magazines are no different -- in terms of freedom of speech -- than you or I. They enjoy no more protection than you or I, nor any more special status. It may seem they may not want you to understand that sometimes, but it's true. The First Amendment applies to individuals, even individuals working in large corporations speaking for profit.
"Do you think The Commercial Appeal would provide any legal assistance for Tha Matt if he's sued for libel?"
Are you kidding? No, they wouldn't.
RE bloggers: I think part of the attitude toward bloggers is reflective of the professional journalists disdain for them -- and I admit that I also harbored such a disdain for bloggers too.
Compared to someone at the CA and their paycheck, bloggers looked like amateur hacks who are afraid to even call sources to back up their opinions.
But that's changing as bloggers become more credible and accepted by institutions that value them as a means of conveying information and not only accept their inquisitive calls and E-mails but start reaching out to those bloggers to make sure they are in the loop too.
I mean, you can't stop people from having an opinion but you can make sure that they have an informed one.
That's certainly been the case for Mediaverse®.
Post a Comment