Earlier this month, a Fox News employee named Joe Muto started writing a column for Gawker - a New York City-based "news" blog - under the alias of "Fox News Mole." Muto attacked and made fun of Fox as much as humanly possible (http://gawker.com/5900710).
Besides undoubtedly violating countless clauses of his contract, Muto is accused of stealing Fox footage and even computer tampering. A search warrant issued last week for Muto's apartment has brought media lawyers forth who argue he is protected under the state's shield law (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/171709/shield-law-could-protect-fox-mole-joe-muto/).
Is there any need for concern that applying the shield law in this case could weaken the possibility of a future federal shield law?
This case definitely presents trouble for future shield laws. Shield laws are designed to protect journalists from having to reveil their sources, not to shield cowards. You shouldn't be protected when you are leaking company information out there and bashing your employer.
ReplyDeleteThis is also different from laws protecting a whistle blower, someone who is trying to expose a company wrong doing. Joe Muto is just complaining about his job. And most likely he'll now get hired by some uber-liberal news outlet because of his writing, which is ridiculous, this guy should never have a job again.
Hopefully his tactic to cower behind the shield law lands him flat on his face, because what he did was juvenile and doesn't deserve to be protected.
I think it would be very interesting to see whether the terms of his contract explicitly touch upon this kind of incident. If they do, and if he is prohibited from using FOX footage or other resources for work separate from what he does in the capacity of a FOX employee, then would that contract override whatever shield law potentially applies? Does FOX's cache of footage, audio tapes, interview notes, etc, count as his "source" and thus deserve anonymity? And does his intent with the mole column play a role here at all? Media law refresher course, anyone?
ReplyDelete